Considering that religious types are so opposed to same sex marriage, and that it is a violation of religious principles, is it time we accepted them at their word and separate the church and state further by calling on our governments to not recognise marriage at all?
From the Catholic News Agency;
Thirty sex religious leaders joined together against redefining marriage in America, warning that such a move would have “far-reaching consequences” for religious freedom.
In their statement, they said that marriage is a universal and foundational institution that “precedes and transcends” any government, society or religious group. This, they explained, is because it is rooted in the nature of the human person as male and female and the children that are born from their union.
The religious leaders argued that changing the civil definition of marriage changes hundreds or even thousands of laws that are dependent upon marital status, including taxation, housing, property, employment discrimination and benefits, adoption, education and health care.
It would certainly make taxation, housing, property, employment discrimination and benefits, adoption, education and health care more transparent and less bureaucratic. It would also fit well with the letter and application of the first amendment to the US constitution not letting government establish a religion.
If we are to treat religious freedom with the respect it so unswervingly demands, the only conceivable way in which to do this is to separate marriage - and all that that implies - from matter's governmental.
Churches would then be free to continue refusing same sex marriages, or not, as the case may be. Quite why someone would want to marry in a church that opposes the very premise of their union is beyond me. I am sure they could find a more suitable venue where their choice in partners is catered to, and if not, I am equally sure such an enterprise would become available in the Land Of The Free.
I welcome this position on the separation of marriage from government in the interests of religious freedom.
Edit: Here is another post on Slate covering the same subject.
"Thirty sex" religious leaders?
ReplyDeleteOoops. That will be the Swedish in me! I meant, of course, thirty six.
Delete