« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
11/18/2008
Churches not forced to marry anyone -- until the gays can marry. HUH?!?! WHAA?!?
The following passage, part of an article posted to One News Now by conservative writer Marcia Segelstein, not only highlights just how fully the anti-gay side fails to understand the civil vs. religious marriage argument -- it also goes against some of her side's most frequently-touted claims (whether she realizes it or not). Here, check it out and then we'll get back to you:
S.T. Karnick, writing in the autumn issue of SALVO magazine, points out that homosexuals may already "marry" in any number of places, under the auspices of any number of organizations. Churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and numerous others "either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex 'marriages' or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies."
No law prevents these religious organizations from conducting such rituals, nor would most Americans expect or want the government to dictate doctrine to churches. But if and when same-sex "marriage" becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals.
Okay, so the topic that Ms. Segelstein is actually addressing in her full article is CIVIL marriage equality. So the entire first paragraph that we have cited is a completely separate issue. Yes, certain denominations will currently marry gays in "the eyes of God." Some churches will not. And this right to their own decision-making is something we fully support in terms of ANY potential couple, not just gays. But this matter does not speak at all to the marriage equality fight, which deals with CIVIL MARRIAGE.
Then, in an odd turn, Ms. Segelstein fully admits what we are saying: That no religious organization is or should be forced to marry couples. She accurately separates the religious ritual from the legal rights. This is rare for a social conservative, as their side's bread and butter is marrying the religious with the civil. It almost seems like she's about to throw our side of bone with a much-needed admission that her side has unfairly muddy these waters.
But what happens next? Well AFA head Donald Wildmon must have been sitting behind her shoulder demanding that she regain her lost conservative ground, because all of a sudden Ms. Segelstein takes another turn that makes absolutely no sense. For some completely baseless reason, she asserts that "if and when same-sex 'marriage' becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals." But why? What gives her any basis to say this? She's already highlighted the differences between the ritual and legal license. She's already highlighted the fact that neither state nor federal laws govern these rituals or the rules regarding participation. So why does Joe and Bob's ability to enter a legal contract change this? Two words: IT DOESN'T!
The potential beauty of this extended Prop 8 fight is demonstrated in Ms. Segelestein's words. As this situation gets more and more talked about and our opposition is forced to to come up with new ways of justifying their bias, we are going to see these folks get ever-more tripped up in their own ideas. And as more people show genuine interest to what has been on our queer tongues for years, more and more are going to realize just how fallible the religious right's logic really is. For those of us who have suffered under the weight of anti-intellectual discrimination justification, America's collective "A-ha!" moment cannot come soon enough!
Why same-sex 'marriage' matters [ONN]
Your thoughts
They seem to be running out of straws to grasp.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Nov 18, 2008 3:38:06 PM
Jeremy, please don't confuse the argument by using facts and logic.
Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Nov 18, 2008 7:07:31 PM
Since they have such religious blinders on...lets just slip fully Equal CIVIL Marriage Rights right in under their noses..or whatever they have up in the air. Just like we did in California, but you all there and we all everywhere need to keep repeating over and over and over Equal MARRIAGE Rights have nothing to do with Religion.
Hey, You Xtians have a religion you like, wonderful, I am so glad you are happy. Just keep it to yourselves.....we don't want it, you can marry anyway you want. Yep, you betcha, you marry your way and we will Marry ours, K? Thanks.
Posted by: LOrion | Nov 18, 2008 7:29:39 PM
You know, they do kind of make sense. Think about it. Of course, Churches will still be able to discriminate if/when there is same sex marriage. But once the laws grant civil marriage to Gays, and more and more people see gay people as normal, functioning citizens, then they will start wondering why their churches are discriminating. They will start to question why their church is backward in it's thinking. And eventually they will start to convince their church's to stop preaching against gays.
And that is what they fear. Not that the govt is going to force them to marry gays, but that their own congregations will one day stop seeing gays as evil and will get them to start marrying gays just like everyone else.
Posted by: acoolerclimate | Nov 18, 2008 8:22:04 PM
I think what she means by "it would become against the law not to follow it", is that they have to accept the legal status that the state says. For example, say someone is in a legal same-sex marriage but repents, joins the church, and then wants to marry the nice woman he met at church. The church can't just ignore the guys legal wedding, they have to recognize it.
Posted by: John Howard | Nov 18, 2008 8:26:36 PM
"is in a legal same-sex marriage but repents"
Oh, John Howard.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 18, 2008 8:34:52 PM
Acoolerclimate: Well yes, in that regards you are right. Gay acceptance will surely, over time, lead churches to remedy their exclusive ways.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 18, 2008 8:36:08 PM
Just to clarify my views on what I stated earlier. I don't understand why churches hate us gays. I think it's stupid, counterproductive and downright evil. So anything at all that will get churches to stop it is a good thing.
Posted by: acoolerclimate | Nov 18, 2008 8:55:18 PM
I think your views were clear, acoolerclimate. And I agree -- reform is something that gay people of faith should seek within their individual denominations.
But in terms of Ms Segelstein and marriage: The point is that the decision is still the denominations' own, independent of the state. While seeking a more positive church environment, we can still respect that churches have the right to set their own requirements for religious rituals.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 18, 2008 9:04:50 PM
That was supposed to be funny, GAY. You get the point, though? The church can't just ignore a same-sex marriage, it is a binding legal status inside the church walls too.
Posted by: John Howard | Nov 18, 2008 10:40:51 PM
Right, John Howard, I was considering the other day why the Mormons say are so against non-Mormons marrying who they want. Then it hit me... they don't, what they are afraid of is MORMON Gays who want to marry in the Mormon faith. (Like Matthew the son of the California Leader of Yes on Prop 8.)
Now are they truly afraid that these poor sinners will go to H*** in the afterlife...or whatever bad Mormons do? ... or are they just like all the others, pure HOMOPHOBES...that absolutely cannot admit it.
Posted by: LOrion | Nov 19, 2008 11:47:29 AM
comments powered by Disqus
