home
RSS
March 25th, 2013
10:10 AM ET

My Take: Will gay rights infringe on religious liberty?

Editor's note: Marc D. Stern is the general counsel of the American Jewish Committee and a contributor to the book, "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty."

By Marc D. Stern, Special to CNN

(CNN) - It was inevitable that the debate over same-sex marriage would have a strong religious component. This is partly because it involves such questions as the interpretation of biblical passages that, on their face, condemn homosexuality as a sin. But it also involves squaring the authority of ancient texts with modern theological understanding and developments in biology. And of course, the importance of love and human autonomy as religious values should be considered.

Those issues surfaced in the various briefs filed in the Supreme Court, some of which are written as if the court must inevitably choose one religious point of view as the winner and the other as the loser. This is a false choice. The Court can make all winners, or at least avoid allowing one side to suppress the other's deepest beliefs.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not been asked - nor could it possibly answer - the question of what God or the Bible thinks about same-sex marriage. Religious groups are divided on that question, some supporting and others opposing same-sex marriage. And even if the religious viewpoint were clear, it should play no direct role in deciding whether the Constitution requires the states or the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage. Our government should not act to further one or another religious view of contested moral issues.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Gay marriage • Gay rights

soundoff (379 Responses)
  1. The real world

    Dear Religion:

    Pull your head out of your ass and just let others be! Nobody likes bullies, and you are just a deluded bully.

    Fvck off.

    Love,

    The real world

    March 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
  2. Live4Him

    @myweightinwords : A legal document. And it conveys ALL of the rights, privileges and duty of marriage. Why require anything else?

    Well, then you don't need a marriage – just have the couple go to an attorney and draw up a similar document granting them these privileges.

    @myweightinwords : You seem to miss the part where I said "FOR ME". I have no interest in marriage.

    Then why are you debating it?

    @myweightinwords : 4) Are the engaging in all the aspects of marriage (yes, including the sexual?

    So, why not include offspring here? Would it limit your apriori conclusions? Second, as couples age, the sexual diminishes and may even stop. Should they then be "divorced"?

    @myweightinwords : does not automatically open up the door for every other crazy marriage idea you can think of.

    I was simply exposing your apriori motivations.

    @myweightinwords : Why do I care why the government gives tax benefits to married couples?

    Now, you're answering as a child would answer. You want to grant priviledges without any thought as to WHY such rules were put into place. We are taxed because we get certain benefits from the government – defense, roads, education, etc. We are granted reductions to these taxes because we provide a benefit to the government. Namely, married couples are raising the next generation – which if that next generation is stable lowers the government expenses by reducing criminal behaviors, increasing education (i.e. higher salaries), etc. So, it benefits the government to have a next generation that is stable. What is the offspring of a same-sex couple?

    March 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • clarity

      Gullible4Him: "Well, then you don't need a marriage – just have the couple go to an attorney and draw up a similar document granting them these privileges."

      Well lets just see what happens first – marriage for all under the same term; or the feds and states having to revise all their documentation wording to encompass both groups.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @clarity : Gullible4Him

      Ignored.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • sam stone

      Separate but equal did not work in the 1960's and it will not work now.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • EJR17

      It seems to me that you are arguing that marriage is a religious concept. It is not. In our country, it is a civil ceremony.
      Taking the marriage business away from the states would entitle churches to only marry whom they please, thus denying mixed-race couples, same gender couples, and ANY couple who that church disapproves of from being wed.
      This is another reason why marriage licenses are issued by the state, and one MUST have a state-issued license before being married, even a church.
      Like it or not, (and I get the distinct feeling you do NOT), there is no valid reason why a gay couple shouldn't be legally wed.
      It used to be tradition to own slaves. It isn't anymore.
      Get with the times, or be left behind.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @EJR17 : It seems to me that you are arguing that marriage is a religious concept. It is not. In our country, it is a civil ceremony.

      Try re-reading my post. It doesn't mention religion in any form. Rather, it is purely logic.

      @EJR17 : there is no valid reason why a gay couple shouldn't be legally wed.

      IF you'd bother to read my post, you would find that I pointed out that gay couples couldn't provide a benefit to the government. So, they cost the government without any compensation to the government.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • clarity

      I'm on the list! Finally.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • clarity

      So the idiot thinks that only a straight couple can provide a stable family and thus a benefit back to the government. Go figure. And that's what it calls "logic". lol.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Testing 1, 2...

      Will gay rights infringe on religious liberty?

      Will people who eat liver & onions infringe on my cullinary choices?

      Will people who bungie jump infringe on my acrophobia?

      Will people who dance the macarena infringe on my swing dancing?

      Will the tiny brains who think gay rights will infringe on their religious liberty infringe on my ability to dismiss them as whiny sycophants like Lie4Him? Of course not.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      If the benfit to the government is "raising the next generation" then the taxes should be based on poeple who have kids, regardless of marital status. And for that matter if we do expand that to raising your kids right, it should only apply to good parents. You raise a hoodlum you get no break. And think of the cost to the government to regulate such a law.

      March 25, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Well, then you don't need a marriage – just have the couple go to an attorney and draw up a similar document granting them these privileges.

      And now you're being facetious. Why go through all of that hassle when there is a simple, legal procedure that takes care of all that for you?

      Want all the rights and privileges of marriage? Get married. Simple.

      Then why are you debating it?

      Just because I don't want it for myself doesn't mean that other people don't want it for themselves, and I will ALWAYS argue in favor of civil rights because it is the right thing to do.

      So, why not include offspring here? Would it limit your apriori conclusions? Second, as couples age, the sexual diminishes and may even stop. Should they then be "divorced"?

      Because offspring is not a forgone conclusion of marriage, thus it is not a defining character of marriage. If it were then barren couples (whether due to medical reasons or choice) and those past child bearing age wouldn't be legally married either. This argument is so old and so off base as to be laughable.

      I was simply exposing your apriori motivations.

      I don't have any a priori motivations when it comes to marriage. A civil right is a civil right is a civil right. Period. I may dislike your USE of a civil right, but I will defend that right with my life.

      Now, you're answering as a child would answer. You want to grant priviledges without any thought as to WHY such rules were put into place.

      No, I'm answering as a person who doesn't care WHY as long as it is done EQUALLY. The WHY doesn't apply to me. I'm not married. I never will be married. It just doesn't apply. The people who get married can worry about the WHY.

      We are taxed because we get certain benefits from the government – defense, roads, education, etc. We are granted reductions to these taxes because we provide a benefit to the government. Namely, married couples are raising the next generation – which if that next generation is stable lowers the government expenses by reducing criminal behaviors, increasing education (i.e. higher salaries), etc. So, it benefits the government to have a next generation that is stable. What is the offspring of a same-sex couple?

      I think you're reading an awful lot into "reasons" for tax benefits, and ignoring the financial reasons a family might have more need of more of their money, etc. Very simplistic view.

      Are you implying that no same-gender couples have children? Are you implying that they might not find ways to have children if they desire them? We aren't living in the dark ages here. Single women can have babies. Gay men can use surrogates. Lesbians can use a sperm bank. They can adopt.

      Children are NOT the reason most people get married. Children can happen in any kind of family. Giving birth to children does not define a marriage.

      There is absolutely no civil, legal reason to object to same-gender marriage. NONE. The only "valid" argument is religious, and that can have NO bearing on our laws.

      March 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • fred

      Only gays have a problem with being granted a civil union to anyone that wants one (man man, woman woman, man women or whatever the state should decide). Traditional marriage license should only be granted to the traditional man and women that want to carryon that tradition.

      I really do not understand the problem.

      March 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @fred, the first problem with your argument is that many rights of marriage, such as immigration and inheritance, are regulated by the federal and not state government. You don't really have the rights of marriage unless it is federally recognized.

      March 25, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      "Well, then you don't need a marriage – just have the couple go to an attorney and draw up a similar document granting them these privileges."
      Prohibitively expensive. The amount of legal rights granted are exceedingly long, and not to mention that wordings in the laws would only grant those rights to those with recognized marriages. This is not a solution.

      @fred

      "Traditional marriage license should only be granted to the traditional man and women that want to carry on that tradition."
      I'd rather respect the tradition of civil rights being protected for everyone.

      March 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      fred,

      Only gays have a problem with being granted a civil union to anyone that wants one (man man, woman woman, man women or whatever the state should decide).

      Wrong. Many straight people also see that separate but equal is not equal at all. I am not gay. I am bi. I have no need of marriage for myself. I see that a civil union and a marriage are not the same.

      Traditional marriage license should only be granted to the traditional man and women that want to carryon that tradition.

      Define traditional marriage. According to which tradition? The one that defines marriage as a man and his three wives. Or maybe a man and his two wives and twenty concubines. How about the one where two families marry their 9 year old children together to secure the family dynasty? Or the one where a forty year old man buys a 13 year old girl from her family.

      If you look at history what we currently call marriage is not traditional. The definition has changed and morphed as society has and it will continue to do so.

      I really do not understand the problem.

      And that is the problem.

      March 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Orphanage

      Dummy4Him
      How about the unwanted children that are born because religious nut jobs will not condone contraception or early term abortions, that is the off spring of same s*x couples that they adopt and the religious hypocrites that demand be born but do not want to care for.

      March 25, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • fred

      Saraswati
      Then the first problem I would have is that the AIDs rate in the world is high. The average medical cost of aids in the U.S is $658,000 per patient. It is right to the taxpayers of this country to take on that burden from the world in addition to the 11 Billion Bush send to out help aids in poor countries? Can you imagine the screams if gay marriage to foreigners was somehow not allowed in the case of AIDS.
      Then the next problem is why should a bible belt state be forced to accept the immorality (4% church attendance rate in Northern California) of non God fearing states. Note I am limiting immorality to failure to honor God and rejection of God not sex
      Then all federal pensions, social security, Medicare and other entitlement laws need to be amended. You know the politicians would be unable to amend the laws. The laws need to be amended because benefits were based upon a 1950 model traditional family where the wife did not have equal job advantage and tradition (yes religion) required the little woman to stay home and raise the family while big daddy brought home the pay day.

      If this is not done it is taxation without representation since the court not our elected official strapped this broke country with another burden.

      March 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Wow fred went off the deep end with irrelevant bullshit this time. Good job saraswati!

      March 25, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • Stop fred

      Do you believe that AIDS is the only STD in the USA? Maybe the untreated dose of gonorrhea you picked up in college is frying your brain. Man you are really, really stupid.

      March 25, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • fred

      Stop Fred
      Syphilis has increased each year since 2000 - its rate is up 81 percent - with gay and bisexual men representing 65 percent of cases, the CDC said.

      Do you want me list all the STD's or is that enough.

      March 25, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      fred
      "I really do not understand the problem."

      No you don't ...you really don't. Go look in the mirror fred and you will see the problem.

      March 25, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      fred,

      Then the first problem I would have is that the AIDs rate in the world is high. The average medical cost of aids in the U.S is $658,000 per patient.

      What does the rate of AIDs and the cost to treat it have to do with marriage?

      It is right to the taxpayers of this country to take on that burden from the world in addition to the 11 Billion Bush send to out help aids in poor countries? Can you imagine the screams if gay marriage to foreigners was somehow not allowed in the case of AIDS.

      Are you saying that a hetero couple, one a US citizen, one an English citizen shouldn't be allowed to get married if one of them has AIDs?

      What if the gay man with AIDs is a US citizen and wants to marry his Italian lover and move him here to the states to help take care of him as he dies? Would that be okay since he doesn't have the disease and wouldn't be a burden?

      Then the next problem is why should a bible belt state be forced to accept the immorality (4% church attendance rate in Northern California) of non God fearing states. Note I am limiting immorality to failure to honor God and rejection of God not sex.

      Could you state this a little more coherently? Are you really arguing that states should be allowed to discriminate based on how churchy they are? So if I'm living in Georgia and happen to be say Jewish, but the rest of the state is very churchy Christians, I shouldn't be allowed to get married?

      pensions, social security, Medicare and other entitlement laws need to be amended. You know the politicians would be unable to amend the laws. The laws need to be amended because benefits were based upon a 1950 model traditional family where the wife did not have equal job advantage and tradition (yes religion) required the little woman to stay home and raise the family while big daddy brought home the pay day.

      Why? These things have all been consistently restructured as more and more women enter the workplace. Do we or do we not have equality in pay/c ompensation/benefits? Each working adult has to pay into the so called "entitlement" programs as long as they are working. In many families, women make more than their husbands. What possible other changes could be required to support equality?

      If this is not done it is taxation without representation since the court not our elected official strapped this broke country with another burden.

      Your argument is that same gender marriage will create an undue burden? Heck, it might save our economy!

      March 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • fred

      What does the rate of AIDs and the cost to treat it have to do with marriage?
      =>If gays are allowed to marry then they become citizens in the U.S. and beginning in next year they get free Obama care at a lifetime cost to America estimated at 1.5 trillion dollars.

      “Are you saying that a hetero couple, one a US citizen, one an English citizen shouldn't be allowed to get married if one of them has AIDs?”
      =>they can get married but someone better figure out who is going to pay for the medical cost.

      “What if the gay man with AIDs is a US citizen and wants to marry his Italian lover and move him here to the states to help take care of him as he dies? Would that be okay since he doesn't have the disease and wouldn't be a burden?”
      =>as I said we better figure out who is going to pay the cost. In a time when we are taking down the reimbursements to old people on medicare it says a lot about a country that would transfer funds from retired Americans to gay marriage with foreigners.

      “churchy Christians”
      =>When this country takes a stand against God it is the beginning of the end. Let the States represent their people not the nation. This is a nation of Christians not the Godless.

      “What possible other changes could be required to support equality?”
      => To support equality all marriage benefits must end period as they are now structured. A new standard based on earnings should be implemented period. The spouse gets zero pension, social security based on the other spouses earnings.

      “Your argument is that same gender marriage will create an undue burden? Heck, it might save our economy!”
      =>If there is God then it is impossible that America would continue to be blessed when the Bible is trashed because of sexual desire. If there is no God then 98% of the world has been wrong for a long time and it's time everyone seize the moment and let their desires run as they will in whatever direction the majority will tolerate so long as no animals are injured in the shooting of this disaster film.

      March 25, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Once again fred, your bible has no bearing on American law, and what sources do you cite for your figures and your assertion that the taxpayers will be forced to pay for something like AIDS treatment?

      March 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • clarity

      fred: "This is a nation of Christians not the Godless."

      It is much more than just Christians, fred.

      fred: "If there is God then it is impossible that America would continue to be blessed when the Bible is trashed because of sexual desire. If there is no God then 98% of the world has been wrong for a long time and it's time everyone seize the moment and let their desires run as they will in whatever direction the majority will tolerate so long as no animals are injured in the shooting of this disaster film."

      Now that I get to the last paragraph, fred, I see that you're completely bonkers.

      March 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      "If gays are allowed to marry then they become citizens in the U.S."

      Since when did gay marriage become an immigration issue?

      March 25, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • fred

      clarity
      If there is a God and the nation turns its back on God the result is bad. That is a fact.
      Now, if the Bible is wrong God does not exist and we haven't a clue about the supernatural or the purpose for our existence. That is a fact
      Exactly what do you find wrong with this?

      March 25, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Oooh yay, fred the coward is ignoring me again. How fun. Too bad he's such a dishonest little turd that he can't back up anything of what he asserts.

      March 25, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • clarity

      fred: "If there is a God and the nation turns its back on God the result is bad. That is a fact."

      In this scenario,fred, I think the fact that different believers each have their own idea as to what would upset their God is indication that the Abrahmic God is a creation of man. How the description of that god changed over time to match the specific culture that needed to employ it is also a dead give-away. Remember, your ideas compared to the next believer are likely very different on issues such as this. Because of the conflicting opinions on issues such as this, fred, you can't speak for everyone on what is "bad", not even fellow believers who do not share your view.

      fred: "Now, if the Bible is wrong God does not exist and we haven't a clue about the supernatural or the purpose for our existence. That is a fact"

      In this scenario – almost. You went too far when you said "about the supernatural". In this scenario, in my opinion, I don't know of anything supernatural – at least not yet. If someone else wants to present evidence of something supernatural, then let them come forth.

      March 25, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • fred

      ME II

      The media only reports sad stories about gay deportations that leave a stricken partner alone in his dying days. The last number I herd was 200,000 would marry their foreign love in order to stay with them in the U.S.

      March 25, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @fred,

      "The last number I herd was 200,000 would marry their foreign love in order to stay with them in the U.S."

      Equally true for gay or straight alike.

      Almost 1% of the US population sounds a bit on the big side for gay deportees (if I have interpreted your context correctly).

      March 25, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      Isn't that 200,000 mostly hetero couples? citation please

      March 25, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      =>If gays are allowed to marry then they become citizens in the U.S. and beginning in next year they get free Obama care at a lifetime cost to America estimated at 1.5 trillion dollars.

      You do realize that gay and straight people have AIDs, right? You do understand that many, many American citizens have AIDs, right? Do you honestly think enough foreigners with AIDs are going to go through the process to marry a US citizen in order to come here to get health care a year or more from now?

      Really? This is your argument?

      You do realize that if all they want is free medical care they can move to any country with socialized medicine, and marry one of their citizens, yes?

      =>they can get married but someone better figure out who is going to pay for the medical cost.

      If the person with AIDs is a working American citizens, I imagine his or her insurance company is. And really, you have to know medical care is never "free". Not even Obamacare can make that happen.

      =>as I said we better figure out who is going to pay the cost. In a time when we are taking down the reimbursements to old people on medicare it says a lot about a country that would transfer funds from retired Americans to gay marriage with foreigners.

      Our problem in the medical industry isn't solely on the medicare side of things, Fred. Our costs are out of control. The industry is far to unregulated and the whole thing needs an over haul. Markups need to be regulated and controlled to keep the prices from breaking people. Better production and lower equipment costs are needed. ETC.

      If we actually did that, medicare would be much better able to continue to support the aging Americans.

      Gay marriage is not going to make this worse.

      Essentially your argument boils down to 1) You're afraid of AIDs, 2) You think gays are icky, 3) In your imagination gay=AIDs=your money.

      “churchy Christians”
      =>When this country takes a stand against God it is the beginning of the end. Let the States represent their people not the nation. This is a nation of Christians not the Godless.

      Wrong. This is a nation of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Maltheists, and others.

      That, essentially, is the entire point. Equality for all. Regardless of faith or lack of faith.

      => To support equality all marriage benefits must end period as they are now structured. A new standard based on earnings should be implemented period. The spouse gets zero pension, social security based on the other spouses earnings.

      Why? If one spouse stays home and takes care of the house/family and is completely supported by the other spouse, why should they not continue to receive benefits after the death of the working spouse? Just because they both happen to be men or both happen to be women?

      I'm not saying that the system couldn't use some tweaking, but seriously, THIS is your argument against gay marriage? Someone might get money you don't want them to have?

      =>If there is God then it is impossible that America would continue to be blessed when the Bible is trashed because of sb>exual desire.

      Why does it always come down to sex with you people? And besides? What if there is a god, but it isn't the god you think it is? What if it's Allah? What if it's Dagda? What if it's Ra? Or Posieden? What if it is Garth, the stoner dude that started an experiment and then got high and forgot all about it?

      If there IS a god, there's nothing saying he's your god.

      If there is no God then 98% of the world has been wrong for a long time and it's time everyone seize the moment and let their desires run as they will in whatever direction the majority will tolerate so long as no animals are injured in the shooting of this disaster film.

      98%? Where do you get that number? Sure, probably most people over the course of the turning of this orb have believed that there is a god or gods of some variety. But if we go back to the beginning, less than a third of them have believed it was the same guy you do.

      March 25, 2013 at 7:48 pm |
    • Saraswati

      On fred's logic no one over 50 should be allowed to immigrate on a marriage visa because the healthcare costs will be too great. We'd also better start refusing entry to anyone with a serious illness (diabetes, cancer) and let in the gay healthy folks instead.

      March 26, 2013 at 7:46 am |
  3. clarity

    from articles linked to page 1, cnn:

    "Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri announced her support for same-sex marriage on Monday"

    "Chief Justice Roberts' lesbian cousin to attend same-sex marriage hearings"

    Salero21 must be trembling in its cave.

    March 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Salero21

      Repent and get out of the miry mud, stop swimming in filth!

      March 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • clarity

      Hey Salero, I have no problems keeping clean. With your silly beliefs, I question if you even have indoor plumbing yet.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Salero21

      clarity,

      There's a Filth and stain that not even the strongest soap and cleaners will wash away. Those are the filth and the stain of the hearth, the mind and the soul. Your filthy soul is reflected in your speech and behavior and stains the chraracter. No soap on earth can clean that, Only Jesus can clean that. But it is your choice to remain in Filth!

      March 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Answer

      "Filth"

      Religious tool knows all about their own filth. Want to give it to you.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • clarity

      oooo – filth capitalized! I'm SCARED! lol.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
  4. Salero21

    That's exactly the plan of these filthy anti-natural perverts.

    March 25, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • midwest rail

      And now, the contemporary Christian "loving" response....

      March 25, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • Which God?

      Sal doth protest too much. Got something you want us to know Sal?

      March 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Salero21

      Oh here we go again! In order to demonstrate "Love" the perverts pretend that everyone becomes an abetor, accomplice and partaker of their filthy acts. Otherwise they will accuse you of HATE. Really, really! Who is going to believe that? Only the ravenous atheists will!

      March 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Salero21

      Abnormal anti-natural perverts! That's not hate, that's called telling the Truth! Repent, that's the message of the Gospel. Repent and get out of the miry mud!

      March 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Troll harder, Sal.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Alias

      @Salero21
      Try to get past the idea that marriage is only about s e x. Mariage is a legal contract with other rights and responsibilities. That is what this is about.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Salero21

      Being an abettor, accomplice, collaborator and partaker of perverts is NOT love is perversion. Those who abet the abhorrent, aberrant, anti-natural and filthy acts and practices of perverts are or have become perverts themselves. They are indeed accomplices, accesories and collaborators of perverts and criminals. They'll share a part in Hell!

      March 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Salero21

      Alias,

      Are you that stupid?

      March 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Alias

      Salero

      Am I that stupid? What's next, are you going to try to argue something about marrying your dog?

      March 25, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Larry

      Dooshewads like this clown do more to make the religious look stupid than any atheist could ever do.

      Thanks for your help!

      March 25, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • fintastic

      @Salero.............. "fact" and "truth" require evidence. When you spew "fact" and "truth" without evidence, you are a liar.. .and a stinkin one at that.

      March 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
  5. meifumado

    If they allow same gender marriage they must also allow multiple spouses .

    ( I'm not a Mormon )

    March 25, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • myweightinwords

      One does not equal the other.

      That said, I think we need to work out a way to allow poly marriages. The legal issues are much more complicated of course, but that shouldn't stop us from making it happen.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Saraswati

      How on earth does that follow? What would be the legal argument? It sounds to me rather like saying "if we allow aspirin over the counter we must allow opioids" or "If we allow 18 year olds to vote we have to allow 12 year olds to vote". You'd need a serious legal argument to say that allowing people one spouse meant you had to allow 18. Heck, we can even allow the number of fish a person can catch or deer a person can shoot. Numeric limits are well within the rights of lawmakers.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • ReligionIsBS

      And your justification for that is......
      Thanks for proving that religous people are idiots.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • Saraswati

      myweightinwords, the legal issues are not only large, but mostly unprecedented as most cultures have only allowed either multiple husbands or multiple wives, not both. There are significant issues of consent and social stability (we are likely to see more single males) that will need to be considered, not to mention extremely complex financial and custodial situations when, say, 100+ people are marries together with either shared or distinct relationships. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but at the very least a single payer national health system would be a prerequisite.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Sara,

      I agree, it is incredibly complex, though I'm not sure I agree with your pre-requisite thought. In particular, the family I know who is poly and have made an effort to co-mingle their families, four of the five adults have jobs that provide insurance for themselves and their children (with them paying the premiums just like everyone else in their company) and the one who doesn't work is legally married to one who is.

      Insurance isn't certainly a concern and can be a problem in a poly situation, as long as the extra premiums are being paid, I do not see any issues with the current system (aside from the fact that the current system is irrevocably broken and needs to be gutted and overhauled).

      I've seen it work and work well. It takes a lot of work and a willingness to do the financial and legal work diligently and meticulously. I think that it could be made easier, given the right legal treatment. But I don't see it happening for many years to come.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @myweight, It will be interesting if we see any country find a way to make legal poly marriages work. I agree it won't be soon though...even if moral objections are put aside the practical and legal issues will be a far larger change than anything we've seen yet.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : How on earth does that follow?

      If you're going to redefine a term, why not change it so that everyone is happy?

      March 25, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • .

      @Live: Sure thing. Make marriage to mean "between two consenting adults". Everything else remains the same. Simple.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • meifumado

      @ ReligionIsBS

      I'm an atheist you nitwit.

      And i'm just throwing something out there to think about, If they are going do away with how marriage is just for a man and a woman then the next step is to allow poly marriages.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @. : Make marriage to mean "between two consenting adults". Everything else remains the same. Simple.

      so, a father and daughter marriage is acceptable to you as long as the daughter is an adult? Why not multiple adults (i.e. pologamy)?

      March 25, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • .

      Live, are you serious with that argument? Incest is illegal, and before you go any further, it is infringing on the civil rights of gay people everywhere. Equal rights under the 14th. Stop your slippery slope garbage. Next, you'll be bringing up marriage to animals.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H,

      so, a father and daughter marriage is acceptable to you as long as the daughter is an adult? Why not multiple adults (i.e. pologamy)?

      As I said below, are they adults? Are they consenting? What difference should it make to you?

      And as Sara and I have discussed, poly marriage is going to take a little more because adding quantity adds complexity. There are things that would need to be changed legally to ensure that multiple marriages does not end up garnering special benefits as opposed to equal benefits.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • EJR14

      The procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. States do not inquire whether straight couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before they are allowed to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children.
      There simply is no reason not to allow gay couples the equal rights they deserve under the 14th. No reason not to allow them to be legally wed.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • K-switch

      Next thing you know, a hot dog will marry a bridge.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • ME II

      Perhaps the government should just get out of the marriage business altogether. Just make everything a legal contract or the state has no say. I.e. even "traditional" marriages would need a contract stating all rights (visitation/ power of attorney/health decisions/ etc) and responsibilities ( child support/ credit?/ debts/ etc).

      If you want to get "married", find a church that will perform what you want, but leave the state out of it.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • ME II

      @K-switch,
      If you can find some capable of informed consent, then go ahead.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Alias

      POEPLE! PLEASE!!!!

      This is not all about s e x!
      It is a contract with many rights and responsibilities. That is why the court has to step in and set the rules. Too many of these comments are way off the mark and only have any meaning in a very specific context – aka wow, some of you are so sure you're right you can't see the large steaming piles of BS you are leaving here as arguements.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @L4H,

      "If you're going to redefine a term, why not change it so that everyone is happy?"

      Even you aren't stupid enough to really believe that either makes sense or is a workable legal precedent. Sometime I think you just like talking through you ass to see how many stupid things you can say in 10 minutes or less.

      March 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
  6. Gave Them Up

    The government pretends it has authority over marriage.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • clarity

      What is your point?

      March 25, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • clarity

      The federal and state governments alike certainly have an involvement in marriage – extending advantages to those with that legal classification.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:03 am |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Actually it does. Marriage is a legal contract. Closeted hmosectuals (sic) who wear satin dresses and funny hats really have no say in the issue, other than performing the ceremony, which non-relgious people can do as well. You think marriage was invented by religion. LOL

      March 25, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • myweightinwords

      As long as the government issues a marriage license and provides benefits with the status of marriage, the government DOES have authority over marriage.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • sam stone

      try to get married with a government license

      March 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
  7. Gave Them Up

    Islam pretends they are chosen. The Jews pretend they are not divorced.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:53 am |
  8. Doc Vestibule

    Here in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for quite some time.
    No clergy are forced to officiate a ceremony with which they disagree.
    No church is forced to host gay marriage ceremonies.
    Not a single hetero marriage has suddenly imploded because same se/x couples can get married.
    God has not unleashed fire and brimstone on Toronto.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • clarity

      How about the housing question at private universities, doc? It seemed like an odd scenario on that point, but I guess something like that is bound to come up.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • ReligionIsBS

      You have to wait longer. We have been waiting over 2,000 years for our saviour to return and burn the world to ashes and cast the evil doers to hell for eternity...becuase he loves us. Give it another 2,000 years, you'll see. LOL

      March 25, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • Saraswati

      It's been legal in a lot of the US and Europe as well and several regions of Latin America as well with no issues. South Africa has had some issues, all related to religions nuts trying to turn things back.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:10 am |
  9. Vic

    I am not a legal expert but I was wondering if Civil Unions can be given the sought after G a y Rights without changing the name to "marriage!"

    March 25, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Separate but equal is never equal.

      I don't understand the reasoning behind denying same gender unions the word 'marriage'. It isn't a religious word, or atheists wouldn't be allowed to use it, nor other religions either.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Vic's just trying to find a new way to be a bigot in an ever changing world.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : I don't understand the reasoning behind denying same gender unions the word 'marriage'.

      How would you define the concept of marriage?

      March 25, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • myweightinwords

      L4h,

      Marriage is two people choosing to spend the rest of their lives together, and making that decision publicly known and celebrated. It is the legal and physical and emotional joining of their lives.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Saraswati

      @myweightinwords, I wouldn't leave ot the vitally important legal issues surrounding immigration, inherentence and government benefits.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Marriage is two people choosing to spend the rest of their lives together

      What are the pros and cons of marriage?

      March 25, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • Doris

      It can b a con – especially if he asks you to fly to Vegas.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • myweightinwords

      @Sara, I think I included them under "legal"...I just didn't feel the need to spell them all out.

      L4H, Benefits? For me? None, that's why I'm not married and do not intend to get married.

      For others? There are a myriad benefits, from combining incomes/homes, to sharing day to day lives, to tax benefits, to hundreds of small little rights and privileges that come with the marriage license (as Sara mentions, hospital visitation rights, immigration issues, inheritance issues, etc...)

      March 25, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H, As to the cons? Well, for me that would include having some one in my life constantly, in my space, in my house. *shudders* No thank you.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Vic

      Adding to the discussion:

      There is something the government would be concerned about more in the case of the sought after 'same s e x marriage' than in the case of "traditional marriage," which is fraud!

      It is easier to forge a sham marriage in the case of same s e x than in the case of opposite s e x!

      March 25, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • midwest rail

      @ Vic – care to expound further on that ?

      March 25, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Vic, What in your eyes is a "sham marriage" and why would it be "easier" in a same-gender relationship than in a hetero one?

      March 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • Saraswati

      "It is easier to forge a sham marriage in the case of same s e x than in the case of opposite s e x!"

      Since a lot more people are straight and it is still a lot more acceptable to be traight the opposite would alost certainly be the case.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Vic

      I appreciate the fact that h e t e r o s e x u a l marriages have more leverage in society but I believe the commitment between two people (persons/individuals) is where the burden lies (is the key,) and it is not per stats or numbers!

      It is more difficult for a man and a women (traditional) to work out a marriage relationship, having to be intimate and start a family (biological) than two same s e x persons/individuals without the constraints of "direct conception" due to intimacy! Any two same s e x persons/individuals can be together without the risk of unwanted conception, and even without the constraints of having to be intimate, for the purpose of committing fraud for the sake of legal benefits under a marriage license!

      March 25, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : There are a myriad benefits, from combining incomes/homes, to sharing day to day lives, to tax benefits, to hundreds of small little rights and privileges that come with the marriage license

      All but one of the benefits you listed could be obtained via a legal document.

      @myweightinwords : As to the cons? Well, for me that would include having some one in my life constantly, in my space, in my house.

      You don't seem to understand marriage too well. Usually, a marriage often results in children. There are also other obligations – you are financially responsible for any action that your spouse incurs.

      Also, your previous marriage definition was also very limited. Should a brother and sister be granted a "marriage"? What about two relatives, one who is caring for the older person? Should they be granted a "marriage"?

      Next, why do you think the government grants tax benefits to married couples?

      March 25, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      It is more difficult for a man and a women (traditional) to work out a marriage relationship, having to be intimate and start a family (biological) than two same s e x persons/individuals without the constraints of "direct conception" due to intimacy!

      Many couples get married and do not have children. Having children is not a given in marriage, regardless of the gender of those involved.

      Any two same s e x persons/individuals can be together without the risk of unwanted conception, and even without the constraints of having to be intimate, for the purpose of committing fraud for the sake of legal benefits under a marriage license!

      Why on earth would two people who do not WANT to be married get married in today's society? And, even if it is for the benefits (I'm assuming you mean health benefits, and lower taxes) what difference should it make to you whether the two people involved are having sexual relations or not as long as they are meeting the other "requirements" for marriage?

      March 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H,

      All but one of the benefits you listed could be obtained via a legal document.

      That's what a marriage license is. A legal document. And it conveys ALL of the rights, privileges and duty of marriage. Why require anything else?

      You don't seem to understand marriage too well. Usually, a marriage often results in children. There are also other obligations – you are financially responsible for any action that your spouse incurs.

      You seem to miss the part where I said "FOR ME". I have no interest in marriage.

      Also, many, many, many marriages do not result in children.

      And, I thought I included the financial issues when I said that they were combing their lives together. I didn't think I needed to spell out each and every way that two people become one.

      Also, your previous marriage definition was also very limited. Should a brother and sister be granted a "marriage"? What about two relatives, one who is caring for the older person? Should they be granted a "marriage"?

      1) Are they adults?
      2) Are they operating under their own free will?
      3) Are they damaging anyone by getting married?
      4) Are the engaging in all the aspects of marriage (yes, including the sexual?
      5) Are they in love with one another?
      6) Are they willing to make the vows and keep them?
      7) Are they free of other commitments?

      Just because we recognize that two people of the same gender are in love and want to get married and we provide for that marriage legally, does not automatically open up the door for every other crazy marriage idea you can think of. That said, traditional societal taboo isn't necessarily the best reason to make or keep something illegal either.

      Next, why do you think the government grants tax benefits to married couples?

      Why do I care why the government gives tax benefits to married couples? As long as the government provides benefits of any kind to married couples, they can not discriminate on who can or can not get married.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
  10. Reality

    o "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    1. The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

    2. "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    3. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Reality

      That being said, there needs to be some differentiation made because of the physical and biological involvement in said unions:

      From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. .

      Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male.

      As noted, there are basic biological differences in gay unions vs. heterose-xual marriage. Government benefits are the same in both but making the distinction is important for census data and for social responses with respect to potential issues with disease, divorce and family interactions.

      For example at http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf , there is a check box for "unmarried partner" under Person #2. There of course is also a check box for "husband/wife". One assumes a gay unionized couple could check this latter box but how does one choose which is which for a gay union?

      March 25, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Reality : those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved

      What empirical evidence was this based upon?

      @Reality : therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

      You make people sound like robots. People mkae choices – some good and some bad.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Saraswati

      Christ, L4H you're an idiot. These studies are widely available online either in totality or in summary where you don't want to pay. If you even have to ask such a question you're just announcing that you are too damn lazy to have bothered to read anything among a vast field of literature. I'll give you a hint, though: try looking at studies that look at actual physical differences among gay and straight people, particularly at sizes of different features of the brain. You won't though, because you are a nasty, lazy simple-minded little fool. It should take you 5 minutes tops to locate this literature so don't come back here asking others to do your work for you.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Live4Him

      Live4Him : What empirical evidence was this based upon?
      @Saraswati : These studies are widely available online either in totality or in summary

      And I've read studies on this before. However, everything that I've read shows that the empirical evidence shows a choice, with apriori beliefs coloring the final conclusions. Since you were unable to provide the empirical evidence, it shows that the evidnece hasn't changed.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Saraswati

      Another tip L4H, look up the meaning of "a priori". I've seen other people here point out that you don't know what this means, and every time you misuse i(presumably in the deusion that it makes you look smart) you come off as an even bigger twit.

      And no, still not going to do your work for you, especiallysince it's fairly clear fromwhatyou wrote that you're lying about what you've read. The funny part is that you're too dim to know why it's so obvious.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:30 am |
    • .

      Reality: the census forms will be changed. It's done all the time. Maybe a box that just says "spouse". They still have 7 years to change it before the next one.
      You are entirely too interested wanting to know who plays what role in gay marriage. It is none of your business.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • Apatheist

      L4H... Evidence is not contingent on you understanding it.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Reality,

      "Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male."

      LOL! Unless you're talking about hermaphrodite (interse x) individuals I hope you don't seriously think anyone has any difficulty knowing who is male and who is female. Wow...you really need to get out and meet some people in the real world.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • .

      No such word as "apriori". It's a priori.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : And no, still not going to do your work for you

      Translation : There is no empirical evidence to support the advocated "made that way".

      March 25, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Your translator is malfunctioning.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Reality

      During a recent episode of a TV quiz show, the contestant, April a "unionized" lesbian, introduced her husband Mary. Case closed.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • EJR17

      So, Reality, what is your point? They assigned each other their roles. They can do the same on the census. Your point: none.

      March 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
  11. Gave Them Up

    Peer pressure pretenders.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • End Religion

      Austin, this isn't your personal diary.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:36 am |
    • Which God?

      Gave, you need to grow up, sonny, and not let "peer pressure" dictate how you run. What a moron.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • fintastic

      religious nut jobs

      March 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
  12. Dont exalt sin, thats all. No more discussion needed.

    1 Corinthians 10:13 ►

    No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
    Romans 5:8
    New International Version (NIV)
    8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:40 am |
    • sam stone

      It's about equal rights, that's all. No more discussion needed

      March 25, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • clarity

      I was thinking think might be a counter post to the one below.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • clarity

      this might be . .

      March 25, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • End Religion

      Austin isn't putting thought into anything. He's just grabbing random bible passages.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • clarity

      Oh, is that what this is, End? Four-wheel-drive, pedal to the floor and dead ahead until the tires fall off? lol.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Which God?

      @ don't. No siin involved as there is no such thing as sin. It's a man-made concept, you fool. Your babble isn't law, and never will be.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
  13. Resurrection Power over all Habitual Sin

    Romans 1:24-25
    New International Version (NIV)
    24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to se.xual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • clarity

      Oh no, someone's done woke up Carrie's mama.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      So is God condemning those peole for ho/mose/xuality or for apostacy?
      Do you think God would've been OK had they participated in a hetero or/gy?

      March 25, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Which God?

      I understand that the "Blue Pill" has better erection power than the resurection had in bringing it to life.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
  14. Ann

    To the four questions posed in the article: no, yes, no, yes.

    No, clergy will not be required to provide premarital counseling to gay couples. They will be able to restrict premarital counseling to couples that fall within whatever rules their religion requires, since their counseling is a religious function.

    Yes, they will have to provide married student housing to legally married couples. At a university, legality trumps religion. If they can't discriminate in admissions, they can't discriminate in housing.

    No, they won't have to employ gay people AT THE HOUSE OF WORSHIP. They should, but they don't have to. They can set restrictions of conduct for those employees. At a church-run hospital, school, or bookstore, different story.

    And yes, if a religious organization chooses to involve itself in a secular social service such as adoption, they will have to refrain from discrimination.

    Wasn't that easy?

    March 25, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • clarity

      So your point #2 would apply even if it was say Notre Dame?

      March 25, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Ann

      Yes. Absolutely.

      March 28, 2013 at 8:48 am |
  15. clarity

    I'm not sure I understood these points in the article:

    "– Must rabbis, priests and pastors provide religious marriage counseling to same-sex couples?"

    Are there places in the U.S. where, by law, religious organization are required to provide marriage counseling?

    "– Must religious colleges provide married-student housing to same-sex couples?"

    First, I would have to wonder why a same-sex couple would be attending a religious college of the type of religion that is not already accepting of their relationship, but I guess beyond that I can see the point.

    "– Must churches and synagogues employ spouses who are in same-sex marriages, even though such employees would be persistently and publicly flouting the religious teachings they would be hired to promote?"

    I need an explanation for this one – I have no idea what he is talking about.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • myweightinwords

      I think on the first point, he's saying that traditionally many denominations/religions have a counseling program that couples who wish to be married must go through before the minister/priest/rabbi will perform the ceremony. Would it be determined to be discriminatory if they refused same-gendered couples this counseling.

      Which, I think the answer would have to be no. If the denomination/institution doesn't allow same gender marriage, then denying the couple the counseling as well would not in itself be discriminatory.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:54 am |
    • myweightinwords

      On the second point, I too wonder why a gay man or woman would be attending a religious college where they would not be accepted for who they are, but here too I am not sure I would say it would be an illegal form of discrimination, because such a school would be a private institution. Of all of his questions, this is the only one I'm kind of on the fence on.

      "– Must churches and synagogues employ spouses who are in same-sex marriages, even though such employees would be persistently and publicly flouting the religious teachings they would be hired to promote?"

      I need an explanation for this one – I have no idea what he is talking about.

      I think the gist of it is, if suddenly same gender marriage was legal, would the catholic school (or Jewish school or whatever) be forced to hire gay people who were in same gender marriages if they applied and were otherwise qualified.

      For this I think if it is the actual church (say positions like a secretary, etc), then the answer would be no. The government can not dictate to the church who it must hire. However, if the business is a business, if it is a school or hospital, that is a completely different story.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Saraswati

      Depending on the college it might be performing primarily as a business. If the only university in town is a large religious university a person caring for elderly parents or an ill family member might have no choice but to attend that college, particularly if through its size it has kept other insti tutions out by market dominance (most small cities and rural areas cannot support multiple colleges). I don't know the answers here, but it isn't always as simple as people being able to choose in the free market.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The most commonly enountered workplace where these issues surface is with hospitals and schools operated by religious groups.

      We have already seen this appear related to contraceptive coverage.

      Does a religiously funded hospital have to cover spouses under insurance, etc?

      A long-time teacher at a parochical school comes out as gay and marries. This person was respected and considered a role model to students. Is their employment protected? Should it be?

      Would this infringe the fourteenth amendment rights of the teacher, or the first amendment rights of the school?

      March 25, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
  16. Gave Them Up

    Group pretend.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • fintastic

      baby jebus tears

      March 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
  17. Saraswati

    There are still churches in the US that won't perform interracial marriages and no one has forced them to, though a religion owned business must general make race blind hiring and benefit choices. The rights and restrictions will follow this well worn path for churches, universities and businesses. It's the same story with a few changes of scene...nothing very new here.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:26 am |
  18. markinator

    Religious liberties will be taken, regardless of evidence demonstrating to such faithful that their supernatural claims are simply that - supernatural. In the ideal sense of the term, "religion", I cannot imagine a set of beliefs founded on the premise that they should isolate the LBGT members of society. The religious fundies are threatended that advancement of gay rights will have them defending their ridiculous views on it. Marriage is a necessary gov't contract, developed to ensure that estates will remain where they belong, and other secular considerations. The churches may have an opinion, and may issue such opinion, but our taxpayer-funded court systems need not consider anything from the religious perspective when making their rulings. It simply must be this way, or else a certain religion will think they're the real one, and the others are false. The reality is that their all consumed with self-righteousness, mired in dogma from thousands of years ago, and unwilling to adapt to modern societal trends. Yeah, they should be nervous.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Resurrection Power of all Habitual Sin

      1 Corinthians 10:13 ►

      No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
      Romans 5:8
      New International Version (NIV)
      8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

      Stand firm against temptation (James 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:6-9; 2 Tim. 2:22).
      Confess your sins to a brother or sister in Christ and pray to be healed (James 5:16).
      Hide God's Word in your heart (Psalm 119:11), trusting in its strength (Heb. 4:12).
      Minister to God with sacrifices of praise (Heb. 13:15) until you are filled with the peace and joy of the Lord (Isaiah 26:3).

      March 25, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • sam stone

      Wow....cut and paste. Nothing more convincing than that

      March 25, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • ReligionIsBS

      What does the babble say about slavery? funny, I dont see you posting Exodus 21: 20-21. Probably because you would be ashamed of yourself for following that garbage.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • End Religion

      Austin would never be ashamed of himself, even after his felony and DUI convictions.

      March 25, 2013 at 11:31 am |
  19. Gave Them Up

    Pretenders.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:23 am |
    • Madtown

      Not my favorite, though you gotta love Chrissie Hynde.

      March 25, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
  20. midwest rail

    This should prove to be an amusing collection of enlightened comments. Let the straw men commence.

    March 25, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • clarity

      lol – you can say that again.

      March 25, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • Science

      over 1700 comments if you want to sgn in on the other thread you can leave a comment .

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/24/opinion/stern-gay-marriage/index.html

      March 25, 2013 at 10:27 am |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.