Religions > Atheism > A good editorial on gay marriage (and other related topics)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob Dog" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2003 09:54:25 PM |
| Object: |
A good editorial on gay marriage (and other related topics) |
Read this bright (no, not in the atheistic sense) lady. She's
spot on: changing laws to ban gay marriage on religious grounds
is no different than stealing or obliterating people's rights
in other arenas.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1317&ncid=742&e=11&u=/030808/228/4x3pu.html
Quote:
----------
That's as it should be. The promise and the dilemma presented by
the Bible both lie in its openness to myriad interpretations. The
nation's founding document should not be used on behalf of any
theological or sectarian view. Instead, it should defend the
right of each person to interpret the Bible as he or she wishes.
Or to ignore the Bible altogether.
---------
Bob Dog
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE
By Cynthia Tucker
This was as unnecessary as it was utterly predictable: Shoring
up his appeal among ultraconservative constituents, President
Bush recently dismissed gay marriage, saying his administration
is moving to "codify" a legal definition of marriage as
restricted to a man and a woman.
That prejudice has already been enshrined in law, in former
Georgia congressman Bob Barr's odious Defense of Marriage Act.
So what is the president talking about? A constitutional
amendment?
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has endorsed an
amendment banning same-sex unions, and a Colorado legislator
has reintroduced a marriage amendment bill in the House.
Let's hope this is just political blather for the campaign
trail. The last thing the nation needs is for its religious
conservatives to hijack the U.S. Constitution.
Among the fundamental differences between the United States
and Iran is the separation of church and state that allows
people of different religious views to live together in
peace. How is America to denounce the theocracy of the Taliban
and Iran's mullahs, who dictate what citizens wear, read and
watch, if we allow our own mullahs to dictate our civil code?
No matter how you feel about the subject of gay marriage, you
ought to be disturbed by the prospect of amending the
Constitution to suit a particular theological point of view.
There are some Christians who would be offended and whose
religious views would be restricted by a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage.
As a member of the United Church of Christ, I would find my own
religious views unfairly maligned by a constitutional
prohibition against gay marriage. The UCC, which has struggled
with issues of sexuality for decades, has gone further than
many denominations in welcoming openly gay and lesbian church
members and clergy. While the issue remains contentious inside
the UCC, some individual pastors have performed marriage (or
commitment) ceremonies for gay members. (The UCC has no
governing hierarchy, leaving such matters to individual
congregations.)
By contrast, conservative denominations such as the Southern
Baptist Convention are adamantly opposed to gay marriage. At
its annual meeting in June, the convention passed a resolution
not only denouncing same-sex marriage but also pledging to
campaign against attempts to legalize them.
What business does the Constitution have deciding that one
church is right while the other is wrong? Where would that
end? Should the Constitution also ban the ordination of women?
Should it decree that all shops should close on the Sabbath
and that the Sabbath be observed only on Sundays? Absolutely
not.
Nor is the Constitution going to order any church to accept gay
marriage if that violates its doctrine. No priest or preacher
ever has to marry a couple he objects to. Ministers currently
make those distinctions. Priests frequently deny the sacrament
of marriage to divorced Catholics, and conservative Protestant
ministers sometimes refuse to marry couples who have lived
together before marriage or who have already conceived a child.
That's as it should be. The promise and the dilemma presented by
the Bible both lie in its openness to myriad interpretations. The
nation's founding document should not be used on behalf of any
theological or sectarian view. Instead, it should defend the
right of each person to interpret the Bible as he or she wishes.
Or to ignore the Bible altogether.
Countless agnostics and atheists marry without benefit of
religious authority. Wiccans marry, as do Druids, Raelians,
Rastafarians and Hare Krishnas. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to
marry in civil ceremonies as well? Or in churches that welcome
them?
Granted, the nation is probably a generation away from general
acceptance of that notion. The culture wars are heating up
instead of cooling.
Meanwhile, the nation need not be torn asunder by an
inflammatory debate over the U.S. Constitution. Let the pope and
the preachers, the bishops, the rabbis and the imams slug it
out. Leave the Constitution alone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A good editorial on gay marriage (and other related topics) |
08 Aug 2003 11:02:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:28:55 GMT, "Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
I always assumed Sharpton was an idiot, being that he's a reverend and all,
but my respect for him definitely jumped up a notch when I heard him say
this.
I never gave him as much credit as you did, but I'll definitely have
to start paying serious attention to him now.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
