This Web Accessibility icon serves as a link to download eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology software for individuals with physical disabilities.

FEATURES













Does Gay Marriage Violate Your Religious Values?
By Luke Visconti - Jun 19, 2009
Photo

 

Also read: same-sex marriage, civil rights, Constitution, Civil War, Dr. Martin Luther King, LGBT, religion

We're reaching a crossroads in the way our country treats its LGBT citizens. The dominos are starting to fall--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont now allow gay marriage (or will do so by January).

Does this change in law violate your religion? No, and I'll explain why that cannot be the case.

Click here to read "Christians Should Apply: More on Religion, Christians and LGBT Rights."

Click here to read "Same-Sex Marriage: It's Not About Religion, It's About the Law."

Click here to read "Do Public Schools 'Get' LGBT Issues?"

First Amendment to our Constitution opens with: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In plain words, this means that we are protected from a state religion--and religion has protection from the state.

Although the word "marriage" is significant in many religions, the word has been used by the state to define a set of privileges granted to a married couple. The rights of the people MUST be protected, and the rights of your church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other house of worship must ALSO be protected.

The state must enforce rights equally, regardless of orientation, but your house of worship will NEVER be forced to marry or recognize two same-sex people.

It's that simple.

It is therefore anti-American to define a legal term (marriage) from the viewpoint of a religious creed and insist that definition apply to every citizen. By fact, this would define a state religion.

We've received more hate mail regarding gay marriage than any other subject in our 12-year publishing history--almost all of it from self-described American "Christians" who either disregard this concept or don't understand it.

However, gay marriage is not anti-Christian, nor does defending it from a constitutional standpoint contradict the intent of the Christian framers of our Constitution. The core of Christianity is built on the concept of liberation, as is the foundation of our country. This concept of liberation so antagonized the oppressive Roman government that the soldiers of that state crucified Christ by driving nails into his body to hang him until he died of blood loss and asphyxiation.

The history of liberators is defined by sacrifice. From the battlefields of the Revolution and the Civil War to the murder of civil-rights activists, the yoke of bondage is never lifted by the oppressor. It must be thrown off by the oppressed.

As the framers could not anticipate women's suffrage, they could not anticipate LGBT rights. However, the wisdom of the framers of our Constitution enabled our Constitution to be a living document, subject to evolution. In doing so, they not only created the planet's longest-lived Constitution, they created a nation that has liberated more people and thereby built more wealth than any other.

Liberators such as Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. tell us with their deeds, speeches and writings with absolute certainty that our nation's sustainability demands that we continuously and righteously expand civil and human rights for all citizens of all faiths.

It is our birthright and our obligation to continue lifting the yoke of bondage from our fellow citizens--and we will do so. This is why gay marriage will happen.

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

This article appeared in the May/June 2009 issue of DiversityInc magazine. Click here to read the digital version of this story.

Readers' Comments

Your opinions and thoughts...
Posted Thursday Jul 2, 2009 by Guest;
Good day sir. You stated that 'the core of Christianity is built on the concept of liberation, as is the foundation of our country.' This is partly correct. However I believe you left out a critical element regarding Christianity's core. It is a faith in Jesus, dying as you've detailed, so that we might be liberated from sin. This is critical to the Christian faith. The question that arises is then - what is 'sin'? I am a sinner. We are all sinners. There isn't one man or woman that isn't. This is another basic and critical point in the Christian faith. I have what is promised in the holy text, through my faith in Jesus Christ - liberation from sin. .
Posted Monday Jul 6, 2009 by Guest;
Not that it matters, but I am a married, heterosexual man. I love my wife. I enjoy women. I have never had a homosexual experience, nore have I had any desire or urge for one. I say this as a preface to my remarks to show that I have no agenda, or axe to grind. My wife and I have discussed this issue and find no threat to us, our relationship or our marriage frome same sex marriage. Religionists opposed to same sex Marriage tend to speak in generalities and abstracts. However, they never answer this question, I want to hear one specific instance... How are you damaged, dimininished, harmed or hurt? How does it hurt you that two people who love, respect and have committed to one another can have one or the other covered by their health insurance are you damaged, dimininished, harmed or hurt? How does it hurt you that two people who love, respect and have committed to one another can visit if one is critically ill in the hospital are you damaged, dimininished, harmed or hurt? How does it hurt you that two people who love, respect and have committed to one another if one can make a choice about the others healthcare if the other is incapacitated are you damaged, dimininished, harmed or hurt?. How does it hurt you that one of the two people who love, respect and have committed to one another can inherit the home they shared, the estate and the keepsakes that have been a part of their lives when the other dies are you damaged, dimininished, harmed or hurt? How does it hurt you that two people who love, respect and have committed to one another, have adopted and raised a child together, can get the custody or access, through visitation, to a child that they have raised, nurtured and cared for together throughout that childs life in the event of separation or death, are you damaged, dimininished, harmed or hurt? Knowing most religionist are sincere in their beliefs, I am certain they have convinced themselves that you are hurt in some way by homosexuals. However, they tend to talk in the abstract. They are talking out of their religious conviction. They and their church have the right, under the law and the Constitution, not to perform the marriage rites for homosexuals. However, marriage exists on two levels. To certain religions marriage is a four-way compact between god, society and each of the partners. However, under the law and socially it is a three-way contract between the two partners and society. The law lays out the rights, priviliges and responsibilities of each partner to one another and between society and the partners. In that context we are talking of civil rights. If two people are married in the context of a church service they accept certain responsibilities to their church and their deity(s) that are above and beyond the society at large. In most states the marriage ceremony ends w/ a statement such as, "... by the authority vested in me by the state of **, I now pronounce you ..." That phrase is the crux(no pun intended) of this discussion. Whether the person who officiates calls on the blessing of their god(s) or not the authority for the marriage comes from the state. The permits (marriage license) are issued by the state. the rules, laws, rights, responsibilities and restrictions are established by the state. The XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states,"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..." and"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." The I Amendment establishes, "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Denying people their "...equal protection of the laws..." Imposing arbitrary rules and laws based on religious doctrine and dogma constitutes "...law respecting an establishment of religion..." An american citizen is one of "We the people..." who has committed to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."(Preamble to the Constitution of the United States,17 September 1787). If you can show me satisfactorily how any of the stated purposes of our country specifically are undermined, diminished, harmed or hurt by granting to two people who, out of love, have committed to sharing a life together the rights and priviliges enjoyed by every other couple that have made that committment. If you, as a member of a church, wish to deny homosexuals the sacrament, the fellowship and the community of your church that is your right. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution that is your right. However, to deny anyone the protection of the law is an abomination under heaven and on Earth. It must not be allowed to exist. Anyone who disagrees with that is well within their rights to leave. As I have said before, christians, who appear to have the strongest objection to same sex marriage, must decide... Are you Christians living in America OR are you Americans who practice christianity? As an after word, any rights that are denied to even the least of us in our society diminishes us all. I am sorry if you don't understand that. In the spirit of this current discussion any one who would deny another their rights and priviliges under the law is declaring themselves an "... enemy of the Constitution of the United States of America..."The holiest, most sacred document written in all the history of mankind. Discrimination of any form has no place in it, nor in it's laws. Not now, Not ever! I have sent letters asking this question to Rick Warren, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Pat Boone, Cary Prejean as well as a number of other people public and private who have expressed objections to same sex marriage. Needless to say none of them have ever provided and answer..
Posted Tuesday Aug 18, 2009 by Guest;
Paul, You comment is very thoughtful and well reasoned. I am sure your motive is honorable. I will answer your question. Some Americans believe that God has a moral standard for humanity. A very large number of Americans believe that our society is harmed when we act in a way that is contrary to this standard. Many Americans believe there are consequences to moral decisions. Many Americans believe that gay marriage is a moral issue. Some, like you, wish to frame the discussion as a civil rights issue. However, the majority of Americans disagree. The victories identified in this article have almost all been been achieved through judicial activism. Judicial activism is great when its going your way. But, don't forget, the Dred Scott decision was another example of judicial activism. I must respectfully disagree with Luke's comment "but your house of worship will NEVER be forced to marry or recognize two same-sex people". I predict that that in the near future it will become a hate crime to read Romans chapter (1) in a church in America. .

Comment on this article   
Name:
E-mail Address:
Comments:*


Career Search


Quick Search Advanced Search