 |
|
|
|
|
March 25th, 2013
10:10 AM ET
My Take: Will gay rights infringe on 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
Next entry »Passover horseradish – rooted in tradition
« Previous entryThe money man behind atheism’s activism
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
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."
The big question: What will the supreme court rule be on gay marriage?
I say DOMA and prop 8 will be struck down.
i think you are right
If that happens, what will the religious believers say?
Ken, the SOCUS is mainlt concerned with the constitutional aspect of it.
Religion doesn't enter into it.
Although if I had to guess, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
It impacts their religious lives not at all; they shouldn't even care.
@EJR17..............Oh I know that. Religion isn't supposed to. (Separation of church and state). Common sense says they will over throw doma and prop 8. I just cant wait for the religious whack jobs to lose their minds!
Ken Margo: I anticipate that more than one head will explode at the "injustice" of it all.
"If that happens, what will the religious believers say?"
I suspect some of them will claim that Lucifer is at work
some will say "goodbye cruel world. jeebus, i am coming to see you"
the answer, no!
its up to your religion and your practice; don't tell other people they have to follow your religious tenants. my faith says its OK
so not legalizing it hinders my religious liberties. your faith cannot tell mine what to do. that infringes on religious liberties. period
"Will gay rights infringe on religious liberty?"
what a ridiculous question. there is no way it can. don't want someone to get married in your church - fine. but don't tell them they can't get married somewhere else. this is a straw man fallacy.
I agree. Gey people getting married has zero impact of one's religious liberty.
*Gay
what about bi s e x u als?
what about restrooms? are they gonna have a gay only restroom?
what about TSA pat downs? Are they gonna make sure a lesbian agent does not pat down a female passenger?
You allow me to marry my brother biyu changpu and bring him over on fiancé visas?
What about people who like both red heads and blonds? Om my god – do we need special rules for them?!?!?!?!
Money is the all equalizer. When the church sees all the gay wedding money they are missing out on, they'll change their tune. Gay money is just as good as straight money.
HAHAHAHA * tears in my eyes*
Bill Deacon
Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll. What happened Bill, before you replied when challenged no matter how lame your response but now you turned coward and run away with no answer as so many apologists do when they have no answer, typical, man up, sweetie.
I cannot imagine that any gay couple wishes to be wed in the Catholic Church anyway; moot point.
There are gay Catholics that want to marry in the church.
All it seems to have taken the Republicans was a few stats showing the tide of young voters. Since they make up most of the conservative churches I think we'll continue to see change in church after church. A lot of people don't remember that only 10 years ago it was Dems just asking for unions and Republicans fighting even that. Now Dems are pro marriage and the Republicans line is often as not "Aren't civil unions good enough?" They've lost the PR battle and are just quibbling over terminology. The funny thing is people's memories are so short they don't remember where they stood a decade ago.
Sara, The Church remembers
Gay men are feminine and lesbians are manly.
How can that happen?
Why does that happens?
Could it be a hormonal inbalance?
Could it be that their choice of "lifestyle" damages their brain wirings?
What of either happened first or could possibly be the cause of one or the other?
some are
Except for those who aren't.
Of which there are many.
I've noticed that very few gay people are naive.
sdw , u get a silver star on your forehead (!)
@Quest ion
If you really cared to know the answers to the questions you ask you would have read a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of pages of research written on this topic. You are clearly far too lazy to have bothered.
Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Some believe that celibacy is appropriate for certain people, or for certain positions. It's ridiculous. Celibacy is unnatural and will continue to cause problems for the religious institutions that employ it.
Many of the people from these same institutions advocate against abortion, but don't understand the realistic benefit of the morning after pill or even basic contraception; their unrealistic wishful thinking is causing the death of many at the hands of disease.
In the U.S. recently we learned of the head of Lutheran CMS chastising a minister of that church for participating in a joint service for the victims of the Newtown school shooting.
One sect calls homosexuality an abomination while the next one in the same denomination is already performing gay marriage.
One sect, the Westboro Baptist Church believes Americans are being killed at war because America is too kind to "fags".
One sect believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri.
One sect believes women to be subservient, while another sect in the same denomination promotes equality between the sexes.
Conflicted right from the very beginning, Christianity continues to splinter and create divisions and more extremism as it goes.
One poster asked what kind of evidence would be sufficient for proving the historical Jesus that is reflected as the Christ character in the Bible.
Reasonable evidence would certainly have to be something beyond what has been demonstrated so far. Anonymously written gospels don't help. When the historical writings ABOUT the anonymously-written gospels appear to have been tampered with, THAT certainly doesn't help solidify anything about the Christian claim. When early Christian apologists themselves charged that the devil had disseminated earlier fake stories before the "real" gospels ('diabolical mimicry'), THAT doesn't help validate the Christian claim either. It just makes things smell very, very fishy.
"A gunman opened fire Friday in a Connecticut elementary school, " can be laid at the feet of the government controlling marriage. The whirlwind is free to roam.
Translated: Hey look! I can make a connection between this rock and Kevin Bacon!
This is total crap. Gay marriage would not force any church to perform the ceremony, nor would it force individual people that perform ceremonies to preform them either. The only thing it infringes on religion is their self-righteous, self-given "right" to try and control what everyone who disagrees with them does. The opposition to this is pathetic, and unless the supreme court is completely full of shit I would expect that marriage equality will be granted once and for all.
The break down of the Supreme Court
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/19/do-6-catholics-3-jews-9-protestants/
By and large, the religious right would like the government to get out of the marriage business, citing "smaller government" as the reason; what this in actuality do is deny people who are not religious the right to get married, gay or straight.
It would also give the churches the opportunity to deny any couple they want the rite of marriage, citing "religious grounds".
This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit, but would achieve what they ulitmately want: prevent those they deem "undesirable" from being wed.
Next thing you know two Catholics will be walking into a synagogue demanding a rabbi marry them and the government will MAKE them! Help, the sky is falling!!!!!
It is going to be so much fun watching all the christatrds heads explode this week when the SCOTUS blows out both DOMA and Prop 8.
This is going to a laugh riot.
"Bwaaaaaa, end of the world!"
"Bwaaaaaa satan!"
It will be amusing. I have a few of them in my extended family
They'll just find one more prophecy to blame it on...say it's proof that America has been taken over by Satan's ilk.
there will always be a boogie man
WRONG;. the government must and should act to stop discrimination. that's exactly what they are there for. should the gov't have acted to make sure black kids could go to school in the south? of course. and they should act now.
marriage is a legal device, not a religious one.
get married in a church with church approval but without a gov't issued marriage license = not legally married
get married in a courthouse without church approval but with a gov't issued marriage license = legally married
you can add ritual and ceremony to a marriage, but it's not necessary. marriage is a legally binding contract between two people.
by governments defining marriage as between a man and a woman - now THAT's the gov't sticking their nose in people's rights.
In the Asian cultures where ho.mose.xuality is accepted even there marriage is between a man and a woman for the protection of their offspring.
The reliefs granted a couple are essentially for their offspring
An impotent man or barren woman cannot knowinly marry a spouse without prior information. If not the marriage is invalid
So not everyone can marry.
@formerly Nii
So you want to ban sterile people from marriage?
Atheist, me:
This is the United States.
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.
Gay couples can avail themselves to the same servives straight couples access.
what culture is that? 'Asian" is a big term describing a vast amount of peoples. i doubt any countries have that policy. that sounds like a tribal custom. which of course means it's not a "law", even if enforced in villages. and you're describing the exception to the rule.
EJR7
The law so long as it is based on Roman law like the US recognizes natural law. It is not possible to marry if you are knowingly impotent, barren or sterile without your potential spouse knowing and accepting. If you cannot afford your partner conjugal rights after consummation. They can leave. You cannot marry if u r below 15 neither can you marry without parental consent if you are below 18.
All these are available by google. Also Asian means Hindu and Bhuddhist cultures.
@formerly Nii
" It is not possible to marry if you are knowingly impotent, barren or sterile without your potential spouse knowing and accepting. If you cannot afford your partner conjugal rights after consummation. They can leave."
Cite the laws. As far as I know, there's no laws on the books that state this.
Clarity
I am someone who has decided to go after the spiritual evidence and I did this by trying to love my neighbor as myself and show compassion. This has shown me that if Christ actually did same and better we can easily say he existed. Besides there is Mother Theresa who tried to do same with similar results. If you try to think like Christ you will know he lived.
And once again, the moron formerly known as Nii cannot actually back up his statements, and now even goes so far as to laud an evil hag who promoted a continuation to suffering.
Haawaii
You are not serious. I have done research and a lawyer also did confirm it here.
If you can remember my real name which I have not forgotten as I use it in real life. How do you then claim you don't know about them. ok then research.
Haawaii
the post was meant for whom it was addressed to but since you've decided to talk about it then lets just say that the way u reacted towards her is the same way you wud react to Christ. Historical Jesus will still be crucified!
@formerly Nii
Pathetic. Theresa preached that those who were suffering in poverty and squalor had a holy duty to stay in that situation, because any suffering you had was because it was gods will. The amount of money you had was gods will, and modern medicine shouldn't really be used. Her "shelters" were pretty much just places people went to die painful deaths while she went around gathering money for the church and getting herself the best medical care possible. She was an evil bitch, and those who defend her are either evil, blind, or dishonest.
You also have not cited the laws that support your assertions above, nor have you addressed whether you want to completely ban sterile people from marriage, as your posts suggest.
Haawaii u make me laugh. So u can't google? i am not banning anything. they r your laws.
Your rant about Mother Theresa is soooo funny lovl
Atheist me.
The laws in the unites States are not based on Roman law.
Those laws do not, and never will, apply to the secular United States where we let the barren, the elderly, prison inmates, etc marry.
Any of your scenarios may be cause for divorce, but not for the prevention of marriage in the first place.
You will need to show me the specific State statutes that back up any of your assertions; a statute where it specifically denies a marriage certificate to be issued.
A question for YOU, Atheist, me: exactly how are gays being allowed to marry impacting your right to religious freedom?
@formerly Nii
Yet you don't actually dispute any of what I said about Theresa, probably because those were her actual positions and actions.
I also asked you to cite the laws, yet you still have not. Saying that their "my laws" does nothing if you cannot cite the laws.
You really are pathetically transparent.
If you do not understand that your laws are based on Roman Law why make noise. Anyway they won't as I live far away from the nonsense.
And the moron formerly known as Nii is still unable to actually back up his assertions, and reverts to the standard theist card of thinking the more they say the same thing without backing it up, it magically makes it valid.
No, Atheist me, they're not.
The US may have many laws similar to the laws in Ancient Rome; they were a Republic, after all. That being said, nothing you have asserted would hold up in our court system as being a valid reason to deny gays the right to wed, so there is no point in continuing the discussion of what people in Asia do.
haawaii
u need anger management b4 u pop a vessel.
EJR7
I think you misunderstand something. If a law is not based in natural law but on whims no matter who promulgates it, it will fall. I think the human rights of the LGBT should not be violated. Gay marriage however seeks an unnatural definition of a natural law and what goes around comes around like slavery and segregation.
Granting equal rights does not infringe on equal rights. The key there is the word EQUAL.
Does a church or synagogue have to hire those who don't follow their faith? No. They don't.
Are they forced by law to perform marriage ceremonies for those not of their faith? No, they aren't.
Can a gay couple get married in a state where it is legal in a church that permits it? Yes.
Sure there will be some gray areas to work out, I'm looking at the college housing question with more questions than answers at the moment, but overall, it isn't that hard.
Believe what you believe and live your life by that, and expect and allow that everyone else is going to do the same.
@mwiw,
it's a well argued op-ed.
The answer to the headline is of course 'no', but the author raises a lot of good questions in the second half of the article.
Does a parochial school funded by believers have the right to discriminate in employment decisions based on personal behavior inconsistent with their beliefs? etc.
It seems fair for there to be some middle ground.
In the school housing question, arguably if there is a case for discrimination based on belief, then only couples who participated in a sacramental marriage associated with the church in question should be eligible – not just anyone with a civil marriage. The real challenge is consistency. They will overlook and forgive some 'sins' but not others.
I agree that there are certainly complexities in some of the less obvious areas, but then those are the same areas where we already have some gray areas regarding the balance of the religious rights of one group/organization versus the individual civil rights of a person.
And yes, over all I liked the piece, and I'm going to be chewing on a few of those points for a while. But extending rights to one person does not inherently infringe on the rights of another.
I'm only familiar with the one bible quote about man not lying with man (which is usually taken completely out of context).
Would someone please tell me where else the bible condemns gays? Concisely please?
It doesn't....it does say a lot about loving your fellow man though......
It's in there! My preacher, whom I respect a great deal, told me so. We are building houses in South American. Gay people are gross. It's in there somewhere. Burn sinner!
Leviticus 20:13 says g.ays must be put to death. nothing about them marrying - but hard to marry when you've been murdered.
"13 “‘If a man has s e xual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev 20:13
Technically this does not say anything about being "gay". It does say something about the carnal acts of two males, but makes no assertions as to whether this was a male on male r a p e thing as it was in Sodom.
Sorry Bootyfunk
That is the "man shall not lie with man ..." quote in King James. Actually, that is in a part of the bible about property rights. What it actually meant was that you should not treat women like men. Women were property. Same part of the book that talks about s e x with a virgin – it damages another man's property.
Is there another?
Leviticus also says that tattoos are evil, but there are no laws against them.
It also says that disobedient children should be hauled into the town square to be stoned to death.
Leviticus says a lot of guano insane things.
The great problem of the mankind is its lack of contemplation – we focus too much on that which is visible instead of considering the things which are invisible.
Once, all things were created in God, and it was unimaginable that there should be anything outside God. God is quasi the sphere of life in which things have a meaningful existence. As soon as things leave this sphere of life their existence becomes meaningless, and they degenerate.
Once Adam and Eve lived in God's presence, in God's sphere. Yet, they scrutinized maybe because God was invisble.
Our misfortune starts with doubting God's love. Adam and Eve lived in the Paradise, they had got everything from God, nevertheless they started to scrutinize instead of being contented with their current situation.
Gays are simple people which have totally forsaken the peacful community of God, their creator. God is the life, and outside the life reigns the death. Gayness is nothing else than a visible sign of decomposition. Gays suffer from an extreme impact of the powers of the death, they are affected by the powers of the death. Se-xuality is meaningful if we use it according to the divine order. When we extremly live outside God, we use our se-xuality in a chaotic way because we have a lack of God's life-giving impact.
Gays need to return to God, their maker, and to get healed through his live-giving power.
Nobody should judge a gay because our avarice, greed for power, envy, hatred, etc., are also signs that we don't live in the community of The Life (God).
Through faith in Jesus Christ we can return into God's confident community. God, the Father, delivered God, the Son, Jesus, for our sins, and raised him from the dead for our justification. This is God's infinit love towards us. If we believe this Gospel of Jesus Christ we return to God, and get healed from our maladies. Let us return to God.
According to Romans, Chapter 1.
http://confessingchurch.wordpress.com
Oh look, Rainer is back with the same empty, non-sensical, condescending, unproven bullshit every other believer tries to pawn off on everyone.
You have no proof of a god, that it is your god, or that the opinions attributed to it are its opinions. The bible has much more to say about "straight" relationships and most of the chatter is the opinion of the church hierarchy. How does gay marriage impinge on your freedom to attend church, marry who you choose, pray to what you choose?
"Gays need to return to God, their maker, and to get healed through his live-giving power. "
What??? All the gays I know love your god and go to church. They are just as good as all others do no harm in this world; they pay their taxes; they work; they raise children; they give to charity and do the same things anyone else in the free world does. Do they have a disease or an illness of some form that requires attention? Otherwise, what is is you believe they need healed from?
I posted a link further down that gives some information...give a read, it might open your mind to the true facts and show you how bigoted your point of view really is.
More mythology from Rainy, the German closet queen.
I don't hate gays, I also don't judge them. When I see a gay couple I only have a giggle over them. I know that I am a sinner too, and every moment I can get consumed by the fire of my sinful flesh. May God preserve may faith, and give faith and the Holy Spirit to every gay man and woman.
No DOGS!
"Gays are simple people which have totally forsaken the peacful community of God,"
Good thing you do not judge them
Rainer: Sorry but not sure what world you reside in but the one I reside in would take what you are doing as pure hypocrisy. You failed to comprehend what I said at all. These people are living life doing the same things as you or I, they are doing no-one harm, they are not committing a criminal offense (so no they are not 'sinning')...read the article and stop the bigotry, hypocrisy and two-faced nature...it's very unbecoming of any human but much more so of someone who claims to be a good christian and yet uses his belief to try to dictate what is right and wrong in this world.
You have a giggle over them? You are a condescending cvnt
"...every moment I can get consumed by the fire of my sinful flesh."
Ok, hurry up about it, then. It's never too soon.
"...every moment I can get consumed by the fire of my sinful flesh."
Come on, Rainy....time to visit the fuhrer's bunker and go meet Jeebus
Rainer Braendlein, pie is not equal to 3.14153339147619394123559772636921348632421742 coniferous horses. Don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.
Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
When I see a gay couple I only have a giggle over them.
-----–
Just like when you open your mouth and speak, the people around you no doubt have a giggle as well.
The thing about gays needing redemption for the sin of being who they are........well, if God disapproved of God, isn't it odd he keeps making them?
"we focus too much on that which is visible instead of considering the things which are invisible"
Ya that about sums it up.
Your crazy.
Rainer tiny brainer, go out & get some sun methinks your vitamin D is dangerously low.
Why do christians hate gays? Jesus loves everyone. Do christians hate Jesus?
Any moment now someone will come along and say "We hate the sin, not the sinner." Which is fun, because it still involves hate. And then they'll mumble something about the OT blah blah blah.
We hate the sin, not the sinner. (That was fun!)....followed by mumble, mumble, the OT says its wrong. (Did I cover all the talking points?)
I'm really scared of heights. Being high up is very very dangerous and really there is no reason for anyone to ever be more than 2 feet off the ground. This is obviously the safest and best way to live. If we want to have a prosperous society we should think about banning two or more story buildings. The danger to humanity from a fall from just about any height is just too great. Some people have fallen from heights and were then unable to have children! The danger is just too great!!
How dare you mock an irrational fear of gay men having s e x, and liking it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0-04VDrCbM
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 the whiny sycophants they are? Of course not.
Basically, granting gay rights infringes on not one person's freedon to practice their religion. It's such a silly argument.
Evil.
...?
This op-ed is a very pragmatic piece.
It's too bad such the 'debate' is not usually as reasoned as the argument made by Mr. Stern.
Ooops – "such debate"
Live4Him,
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.
There are also the same options available to gay couples as there are to straight couples who cannot have children.
Additionally, there is a dearth of children born out of wedlock; obviously, marriage isn't a requirement of child-bearing.
Now I know L4H won't even glimpse at this but I'm sure you will:
this is taken from an article http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gb>ay-parents.html
"Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than hetb>erosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Mab>ssachusetts who researches gay and lesb>bian parenting. Gb>ays and lesb>bians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental preb>gnancy rate among heb>teroseb>xuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.""
The reason would be that L4H doesn't like it.
Saraswati: well, it is a good thing that our laws are not predicated on what Live4Him likes!