(no subject)
Megan's homosexual marriage entry has urged to put this up.
We could take a lesson from Jewish scholars and rabbis insofar as letting religious belief remain just that. The most respected of their clergy will often say that the days of governing according to the Torah are long gone, and that by no means is it an acceptable standard for governing modern society. I wish I could quote someone, but at present I can't find one. I don't think the Bible has a place in the halls of Congress or in the West Wing of the White House. These texts are outdated and unfit for governing a modern society. Otherwise, we'll be executing farmers for planting different crops side-by-side (see Leviticus), imprisoning football players for touching the skins of dead pigs every Sunday (see Exodus), stoning to death all employers who make employees work on the Sabbath, and selling your youngest children into slavery would be sanctioned (thank Exodus once again).
So...back to gays. Do I believe they should be married? No. Marriage is a religious recognition, not a civic one. Whether you know it or not...you must first be civilly recognized by the state as a legal union. THEN you are allowed to have your marriage in your faith of choice. I assume you've all heard of marriage licenses before, right? That license is what guarantees married couples their due benefit under law, not the ceremonial walk down the aisle. By allowing religions to decide for themselves who they marry (which is their right, mind you), we do NOT inhibit the rights of homosexual couples. So what are we really dealing with here? We're dealing with an encroachment on the First Amendment as well as an infringement upon equal protection under law.
The state has no place telling Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindis who they can and can not marry in their churches and temples. The people who constitute these faiths came to this country with the promise that they would be able to practice their faith without hinderance or interference from the state. If they don't believe in allowing gays to marry in their churches, it is NO ONE's place to tell them they must do otherwise. And if you try to respond to me with anything about extremist Muslim practices in the last twenty years posing a social threat and us and our having a place telling them what to do, don't even bother.
On the subject of rights...I do believe the state has an obligation to recognize the civil union of homosexuals and provide them with equal protection under law. I think that adding amendments to state constitutions that prohibit equal protection under law for a certain group of citizens is bordering upon criminal. If you're going to recognize heterosexuals under law, you had better do the same for homosexuals.
We need to leave the religious parts of the discussion to the priests, rabbis, and clerics of the world. We have a responsiblity as Americans to ensure that our government is a place where everyone can come together and NO ONE gets left behind. No one.
We could take a lesson from Jewish scholars and rabbis insofar as letting religious belief remain just that. The most respected of their clergy will often say that the days of governing according to the Torah are long gone, and that by no means is it an acceptable standard for governing modern society. I wish I could quote someone, but at present I can't find one. I don't think the Bible has a place in the halls of Congress or in the West Wing of the White House. These texts are outdated and unfit for governing a modern society. Otherwise, we'll be executing farmers for planting different crops side-by-side (see Leviticus), imprisoning football players for touching the skins of dead pigs every Sunday (see Exodus), stoning to death all employers who make employees work on the Sabbath, and selling your youngest children into slavery would be sanctioned (thank Exodus once again).
So...back to gays. Do I believe they should be married? No. Marriage is a religious recognition, not a civic one. Whether you know it or not...you must first be civilly recognized by the state as a legal union. THEN you are allowed to have your marriage in your faith of choice. I assume you've all heard of marriage licenses before, right? That license is what guarantees married couples their due benefit under law, not the ceremonial walk down the aisle. By allowing religions to decide for themselves who they marry (which is their right, mind you), we do NOT inhibit the rights of homosexual couples. So what are we really dealing with here? We're dealing with an encroachment on the First Amendment as well as an infringement upon equal protection under law.
The state has no place telling Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindis who they can and can not marry in their churches and temples. The people who constitute these faiths came to this country with the promise that they would be able to practice their faith without hinderance or interference from the state. If they don't believe in allowing gays to marry in their churches, it is NO ONE's place to tell them they must do otherwise. And if you try to respond to me with anything about extremist Muslim practices in the last twenty years posing a social threat and us and our having a place telling them what to do, don't even bother.
On the subject of rights...I do believe the state has an obligation to recognize the civil union of homosexuals and provide them with equal protection under law. I think that adding amendments to state constitutions that prohibit equal protection under law for a certain group of citizens is bordering upon criminal. If you're going to recognize heterosexuals under law, you had better do the same for homosexuals.
We need to leave the religious parts of the discussion to the priests, rabbis, and clerics of the world. We have a responsiblity as Americans to ensure that our government is a place where everyone can come together and NO ONE gets left behind. No one.