While I would consider myself a person of faith and occasionally attend a wonderful little church in San Diego called mission gathering... I understand that there are (many) other churches and faiths that don't quite belive that a person can be both Christ-centered and "religious" AND gay.
So for all of you, I reassure your right to still believe that you can't quite be both:
the court decision officially states: "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious official will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
So never fear. My rights won't take away from your right to continue to believe it's wrong and or deny me from getting married in your church. That's fine.
:)
Oh... and this might be helpful:
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10757746
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hey Neighbor-Nice work. I appreciate your research and will pass it on to those yes on 8 people that I know. Including a few that live on Mandarin Dr.
There is, unfortunately, a pointed difference between a court decision and the law as it is written within code books.
Until such assurances exist in within the body of California code, no binding guarantee is legislatively enforceable. It is true that the court's decision becomes precedent for future cases pertaining to conflicts between homosexual partnerships and religious liberty, and inferior courts are (theoretically) bound by such. However, precedent cannot be confused with legal requirement, as the former does not expect or oblige a future judge (or jury) of the same or a superior court, to abide by the precedent or rule similarly in the next case. If it did, we would not see the shifting trend we see today in the history of our court decisions, and many rulings seen therein, subsequent to many eras of social change, would be invalid.
On that note, I am of the opinion that we must climb the "ladder of progress" rung by rung, rather than precariously jumping ahead of ourselves. I am a supporter of homosexual rights as they pertain to partnerships. However, as California already possesses domestic partnership rights (though they might be allegedly incomplete at this time), I believe that we must first create the legal assurances needed to ensure that religious liberties, "longer-standing" institutions (per se), will not become overshadowed, as to delay entertains a path of religious discrimination. The second step would then follow to repair what disparity may still exist in the benefits guaranteed to domestic partnerships. I do not believe it is wise to orchestrate this with any other approach.
Though you might believe me inequitable, much of my opinion is formed upon a pattern already growing in many other states that have previously legalized and defined domestic partnerships as marriage or similarly (providing no protection for religious liberties). I direct your attention to this article, printed by the National Public Radio, wherein the cases of several individuals and organizations received suits and/or judgments contrary to and contravening their religious liberties respectively. Many of the incidents I am referring to are listed at the end. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
In conclusion, I believe one should vote in any manner as they best see fit, to the best of their conscience, free of coercion, and that none should receive persecution for a simple difference of opinion.
Happy Voting.
Do you not think though, that if a person due to their belief system, finds homosexuality to be a sin... is it not still discrimination if they, if working to artificially inseminate couples do not first ask if they had sex before marriage, or cheated on one another, or committed any other sin? Is it not discrimination to single out one "sin" above all others and not provide a service to that couple?
No church has ever HAD to marry any couple. There are numerous churches that I would be turned away from today for a variety of reasons, not of which being my sexual orientation.
I think you are right though. Religion is something that has been very central in my life growing up as well... it would be an absolute shame to see churches being told what to do by the state when it comes to what they believe and have believed for centuries.
To the best of my knowledge, California is doing a much better job of protecting religious rights than other states that now allow same-sex couples to marry.
How sad though about the mental health worker in that article you mentioned... she wouldn't counsil a gay couple? I do not come across many people in the mental health profession (which I work in) that would discriminate in such a way. I would think that in a field where the American Psychological Association states that homosexuality is not a choice and that one ought not try to change someone who is gay (for this results in further trauma to person who is no doubt already experiencing painful discrimination and possibly hatred for what they are..) I would hope anyone in this field would be more accepting and try to counsil someone in an attempt to give them the best quality of life possible. I'm pretty Jesus was mostly helping out the "sinners" (i use quotes because I dont necissarily thing being gay is a sin..) if he had reserved his counsel and aid for only those who were entirely righteous... he would have only been kickin it with the pharisees... which we all know is completely untrue.
Jesus administered to, taught, and counseled both the righteous and wicked; believers, disciples, skeptics, and detractors alike. And in fact, one incident wherein men received The Lord's strongest counsel, involved not the teaching of disbelievers, but the workers in the temple, of whom were angrily rebuked for the exploitation thereof for their own secular ends. As you illustrated, The Lord's gospel and message is for all who would willingly partake of it, was never intended otherwise, and should be shared accordingly.
As for your question regarding discrimination via sin; it is admittedly not an easy one to answer, as I fear it possesses the potential to distress, though I assure you that is not my intention.
To begin, I think it relevant to draw attention to the verity that some religions do indeed ask the very questions you did, when evaluating the moral health of men and women, before sanctioning their privilege to be married, as man and wife, within the standard and blessing of their institution. In these religions, it is believed that the "higher" blessings (such as marriage) are a privilege, and therefore cannot be dispensed to any man or woman, but must be reserved for those who prove themselves, by evaluation, worthy and "righteous." Moreover, failure to satisfy said assessment results in a renunciation of the marriage application (at church level), wherein the parties are informed they must undergo a period of repentance before the marriage can be performed by the church. In such a situation, if the parties feel a delay is undesirable, they are also reminded that may participate in a purely civil union. This is indeed a form of classifying and is discriminating, but is it truly unfair?
I sympathize that you might feel frustrated by the preference of some in the commercial and private industries, to refuse business based upon their religious belief that homosexual relationships are a sin. However, I think it also relevant to point out, that if one believes this is discrimination, conversely one obviously cannot reckon religious institutions impartial, as in truth many (perhaps the vast majority) conduct their business partially and moderately, favoring "blessings" only to the worthy and "righteous."
Thus we return to the ever perpetual, tacit issue, and the question remains, should we prosecute religions because they believe homosexuality is a sin and therefore refuse to sanction homosexual marriages (or any other "sin") within their institutions? In addition, should a disciple of these religions be allowed to practice the impartiality and tenets of their religion freely, or only wherein it pleases the public? As it relates to religions that believe in homosexuality, would that not potentially place their freedom to worship superior to the freedom of another that believes otherwise? I point out, in some religions, to exercise one's values and ethics in an insincere manner while within the public eye is also a sin.
To finally answer the question of discrimination, I must stress that I am speaking from my own opinion, speculating based upon the motivations of persons unknown to me for a possible explanation, with the knowledge that not all believe or think as I do. Nevertheless, to my best estimation, I believe the explanation is as follows, which I will first cover on marriage.
Wherein one might easily breach the law of chastity, the indications of this sin are generally not straightforward or easy to single out simply upon sight (save, of course, in certain circumstances). When said individual applies for marriage to a partner of the opposite sex, it is natural, though perhaps unconsciously myopic, for those business owners who believe exclusively in heterosexual marriage, to assume the couple are pursuing righteous courses. And in some cases, I point out that many believe (and attach this to their religious beliefs) that it is proper for heterosexual couples, whom have breached the law of chastity, to be immediately married, thus inquiring into such issues is deemed unnecessary. Yet on that note, I would conclude it inappropriate (according to some religions) for individuals not possessing authorities as a religious leader, in the right setting, to even inquire into the unobservable issues of virtue. Consequently, some heterosexual business owners believe they are not allowed to ask these questions, and must act on faith that the heterosexual couple is acting righteously.
However, when approached by couples of the same sex, the "sin," becomes observable and conspicuous, and said business owners are easily able to conclude that the same-sex couples are not following the same beliefs as they. Thus, believing it a sin to condone such another "sin," when known, they feel it within their duty to continue living the values of their religion and refuse to offer their services. In addition, if one is actively living in a same-sex relationship, one is obviously not conforming to certain religions' ideas of righteousness and/or repentance, and cannot therefore be forgiven by said religion. Whereas with someone who once broke the law of chastity but is planning to be heterosexually married, there is the likelihood they repented previously and were forgiven. This, together with the other reasons I previously outlined, allows the business owners to feel they can provide the heterosexual pair his services, even if only acting on faith.
I believe this explanation might also be of relevance to the issue of the marriage counselor you mentioned.
As for the example of artificial insemination, involving the breach of the law of chastity or any other commandment before marriage or during marriage, wherein you used the past tense, I would have to conclude that one must assume repentance has been performed and the sin is best "left in the past." As a side note, some religions do believe that artificial insemination cannot be received by unmarried women, and I would not be surprised if professionals within these religions do refuse to artificially inseminate said individuals. Nonetheless, in regards to couples, I fall back again to the fact that many religions believe one may only make inquiries into the unseen issues of virtue of an individual, so long as they hold the proper authority given them by said religion, and the inquiry is made at the correct place and time. And I speculate that many in this profession would withhold such questions for that very reason.
There may be a few in any profession, who do not hold this belief of authority, however, which brings us to a new problem.
How do we separate those who are following the tenets of their religions from those who are genuinely discriminatory simply for the sake of discrimination? The psyche is one realm that is always difficult for mortal law to decipher and convict, even in the simplest approach. And I'll have to conclude all this by saying that those who do discriminate simply for the sake of discrimination, are better left to the judgment of God, as no man is perfect and by subsequence, no mortal reasoning faultless and no mortal law and prosecution flawless.
We simply need to do what we can now to protect both religious liberty and free speech, and love all, despite our differences or the inability to religiously sanction.
so what I'm hearing, Ethan, is that no one has ever taken any of your rights away?
Actually, my name is not Ethan; that just happened to be the name associated with this email due to a pastime, and I didn't think much of it when I a posted a comment the first time.
But, I'd have to reply, respectfully, that such an assessment is regrettably inaccurate. I did once reside in California, wherein my right to freely carry and own firearms was infringed upon, and by association my right to protect the right of my family to life and liberty in the absence of law enforcement personnel, thus as a law-abiding citizen I was reluctantly forced to set my claim to these rights aside. In addition, should I choose to travel from the state where I currently reside, my right to freely carry a firearm as legislated by my home state would not be accepted by many other states possessing more stringent legislation. Moreover, that is not the only example of infringement upon my rights caused by government legislation, but likely the best for comparison.
However, that said, I have a few questions of my own.
Take into consideration the legal development and progress of California Family Code since 1999, and subsequent court cases (such as Knight v. Superior Court) wherein domestic partnerships are upheld as sovereign institutions within the State of California, not subject to section 308.5. (A process that is better guaranteed than verdict alone, as the law existed before the judicial interpretation.) Also, take into consideration that domestic partnerships within the State of California have possessed all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities that can be legislated and administered by said state, since the “expanded” domestic partnership provisions were passed and judicially sustained in 2005. Will your rights truly be infringed if Proposition 8 passes; a provision that existed within Family Code since 2000 and was judicially deemed disparate of domestic partnerships and therefore outside its sphere of influence?
Take into consideration that the benefits and rights not yet afforded to domestic partnerships are legislated and administered at a federal level. What will you do in light of the fact that no amount of legislation in California (or any other state) will ensure those federal rights or benefits to domestic partnerships, nor force federal law to recognize domestic partnerships? Will you continue to pursue “civil rights” in a venue that cannot assure federally legislated benefits and rights? What will you do in light of the fact that calling a domestic partnership by the name of “marriage,” will not ensure your status outside the State of California in states that accept marriages of a man and woman only?
If Proposition 8 fails, in view of the fact that there does not yet exist a law within California Codes that explicitly protects the rights of religious citizens to live the tenets of their religion publicly and as they see fit, what will you personally do to ensure their rights once your “rights,” have been secured? I feel it relevant to point out that at least one religion’s tenets were legislated against before, and there is little to prevent it from happening again if protections do not exist. You claim that you are not passionate about politics, but once you ensure the “rights” you claim will be taken away from you, will you then continue personally fight to protect religious liberties as well?
yes, but EVERYONE within the state you reside has the SAME rights when it comes to firearms?
The right was not just taken away from a specific group of people?
And earlier you metioned clibing the "ladder of progress"... I realize that while ok in California, same sex marriage is not allowed on the federal level. In my opinion, CA defeting prop 8 would, indeed, be a STEP in the right direction. I think without this step, it may be even more difficult to get same-sex marriage on the federal level. So, yes... important.
And yes, this has without a doubt opened my eyes. This whole experience. My new hero, Paul was a boy I met at the phone bank... middle class, white, educated, straight... aka, no discrimination. But he identified fighting for the equality of all people as an important cause. How huge is that... how beautiful that a person in no way effected by this would volunteer his or her time to fighting for equality, because it is what they believe is right. Without going into detail... this has absoluteley been somewhat of a soul-searching experience. I absolutely see myself giving what I can to ensure the equality and fair treatment of others, regarless of how it impacts me.
AND as a "religious" person I find it hugely important protect the rights of churches... to keep the government out of churches... but equally keep the churches out of our government. God calls us to obey the laws of the land unless they specifically violate his commands. I believe Jesus performed many a miracle for prostitues and various sinners, is there ever a place in the bible he calls his people to withhold services from homosexuals or any other "sinner"?
Anyhow... this all is totally exhausting me. I'm sorry. I know you are clearly intelligent and make great points. But here I am... a person. And its easy for you to make these points... it easy when your behind your computer, masked by the name "ethan" and you don't know me... and after nov 4th will i'm sure quickly forget me.
But here I am... sitting at my computer, tearing up because, yet again, someone thinks I ought not be entitle to marriage because I want to marry a girl.
I want to marry the person I love.
I want to someday, not have to worry that I may be denied entrace to my spouse's hospital room in an emergency because I'm not "next of kin"
This, "ethan", effects me DEEPLY. I have had numerous, conversations with my parents about this... they have struggled over the issue. They have been torn between voting yes or no since the beginning...
I recieved a phone call from my dad about half a week ago... he was crying and told me that he loves me. He told me that he doesn't know where Jesus would have stood on this issue, but that he knows that Jesus calls us love everyone... and to love them equally. He told me that he wants to see me have the best quality of life possible and if voting no is what it takes, then that's what he's going to do.
I don't know if you're married... but if you are... remember that day.
Remember how your wife looked walking down the isle.. your emotions... the "this is it" .. "this is THE ONE person I want to spend the rest of my life with.
I hope to find that person someday too. I want to say to someone "I will love you forever... I will be faithful and cherish and respect you"
And if you believe that this is a sin... that's ok. I will stand before God someday, accountable for everything I've done.
And if one of those things is loving someone for my whole life... through sickness and health who happens to be the wrong gender, so be it.
I belive that the most christ-like thing anyone could possibly do on this earth is to love others. Love others is in the bible hundreds of times where what is now translated as "homosexuality" is only mentioned a VERY small handfull....
I'm guessing love was the priority.
I'm just baffled my love could be wrong.
And that's an issue, I really don't care to debate.
Post a Comment