Picked this up on Pam’s House Blend tonight and thought I would post it here. I’d encourage you to go read this article in full over at the Right Wing Watch web site hosted by People for the American Way. This article clearly illustrates how religious groups have sought to distort the distinction between CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage (among other things). To them, ALL marriages whether in a church or in a courthouse are one in the same when in fact this is not at all true. Millions of people get married each year with no involvement what-so-ever of a church or religious organization. Hell, many people are married by Elvis. The biggest problem as I see it is the fact that in this country, we allow religious leaders the ability to confer BOTH the civil aspects of marriage (the certificate, the invoked benefits and responsibilities) and the religious aspects of marriage (one before God etc.). Since gay marriage in California was voted out by a slim majority of people through Prop 8, it’s become brazenly clear to me that the government needs to get out of the marriage business all together. I think I place myself into a growing number of people who believe that our government, in their quest to promote stable relationships between people, (something I strongly support) should offer civil unions to EVERYONE who wants one. Gay or Straight. This would equalize entirely all aspects of CIVIL marriage into one collective definition in so far as rights, responsibilities, and benefits conferred by the state. Religious organizations can do what they want with marriage and as the article below suggests they would continue to be free to religiously marry whomever and however they want. No longer would clergy have the authority to speak for the state in the matter of CIVIL marriage and no longer would any state suggest that they favor one religious interpenetration of marriage over any other.
Most of you reading my blog don’t really fit into the over-zealous category of religious fundamentalism. If any of you do, you’ve done a great job of hiding it. Anyhow, religious organizations are the PRIMARY stumbling block for GLBT rights in this country. Stereotypes and general prejudices are learned anti-social behaviors that can (and often are) changed over time as people get to know other people. Religion however is generally not something people lose over time (although that isn’t 100% true either). People who grow up believing, tend to live their entire lives based on those beliefs and the beliefs of the religious organization that reinforces them. It is for that reason religion can not be separated from the debate on gay rights (in particular gay marriage rights) and it is for that reason religious organizations are at the front of this culture war and why they hoot and holler as loud as they can. Just look at the quotes in the block below. These are individuals with deep convictions and a very public presence. People believe what they say because they speak by the authority of their God. It can be extremely difficult to reach people who have been blinded by their faith when that faith is consistently reinforced to the exclusion of everything else out there in the world. I am not anti-religion or anti-christian or whatever else but from an intellectual standpoint, I can not trust a person or an organization that puts blind faith ahead of human compassion and tolerance. It’s none of my business that you believe in God any more than it’s none of your business that I don’t.
Religious and Political Leaders Confuse or Distort the Civil and Religious Distinction During the pastor organizing calls for Proposition 8, in which Californians voted to strip same-sex couples of the constitutional right to marry, a two-fold strategy became clear. To pastors and members of conservative evangelical churches, proponents of equality were described as satanic forces who needed to be engaged in a religious war. People For the American Way Foundation’s report on one of those calls notes that one speaker predicted that if Prop. 8 failed, the God-ordained institution of marriage would be destroyed; the engine of hate crimes legislation would be fueled, ultimately leading to it being illegal to read some sections of the Bible; the floodgates would be open to gay couples suing to force churches to marry them; and the polygamists would be next. But organizers were told that in reaching beyond their religious communities the campaign strategy would be to attack activist judges and stir fears about supposed threats to children.
Contrary to the claims of Ralph Reed and Richard Land noted above, many opponents of marriage equality did insist that civil marriage law must follow what they believe God and the Bible say about marriage. Below are just a few representative samples of that kind of rhetoric:
“If you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.”
– Rick Warren, pastor and author, in a video message to church members“As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must affirm that marriage is an institution created by God and defined as a union between one man and one woman.”
- Christian Anti-Defamation Commission demanding in June 2008 that John McCain pick as his running mate a “True Christian,” which the group defined as someone who is anti-gay and anti-choice.“The California Supreme Court ruling not only overruled the very clear will of the people, it also proposes to overrule God’s design. These judges may think they know more about marriage than the rest of us, but I am confident they don’t know more about marriage than God. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Children need that environment to give them their best chance to fulfill their great potential. That’s not only my opinion and the opinion of most of the people in this country, it’s God’s opinion, and His opinion overrules the opinion of any judges.”
– Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission following last year’s California Supreme Court ruling that the discrimination against same-sex couples violated the state’s constitution“It’s the height of humanist hubris to believe that man (including judges) can radically redefine that which God has created. We can never sanctify that which natural law rejects and God expressly condemns.”
– Concerned Women for America’s Matt Barber
Pingback: Anonymous