Don't Impose Theology on Matrimony

I have read all the panelists' responses, and your response, by far, best answers the question—particularly the last paragraph. Thank you for this brief and profound treatment of such a weighty and divisive issue.

Don't Impose Theology on Matrimony
Well then what to impose - free choice to act as per your wishes. Then what is the need to cry for acceptance just go ahead. Matrimony is sanctioned by religion as other goods for the society.
If they gays are living without marriage who is stopping them? why they need all of us to accept there act which we feel is a sin.
this is a matter of believe in divine injunctions either you believe them or do not believe , you have the choice you have the freedom.

While I applaud your article and appreciate your stance on this issue I think a better question would be: What gives any religious sect the right to decide what is essentially a legal question?

I thought that this country had a separation of church and state written into the constitution? With that in mind there should be no question as to whether or not same sex marriage is legal, it should never have been illegal. If viewed in those terms then any state that has passed a law making same sex marriage illegal is in violation of the constitution.

At the same time any RELIGIOUS organization that chooses not to recognize these legal unions may do so up to the point where it is in opposition of the law. At that point they should be held responsible for breaking said law and must pay any fines and or penalties that are required.

It is my opinion that mainstream religions in this country have gone too far in their expectations that every citizen be required to follow the tenets and teachings of their beliefs. Somewhere in the past the lines have gotten blurred and we need to clarify them. Contrary to what they may think the religious right does not run this country and hopefully never will. Lets make that perfectly clear here and now by doing what should have been done a long time ago, take the decision out of their hands and recognize what should have been recognized all along … same sex marriage is a binding legal contract between consenting adults, nothing more and nothing less and if you find it offensive then stay out of other people’s bedrooms.

"Marriage--gay or heterosexual--should be a right available to every citizen, but never a legal act, ritual, or formal ceremony that any house of worship, denomination, or religious leader should be required to perform in contradiction to their beliefs."

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but no clergy in America is required to perform a marriage ceremony for any reason, unless they are offering a service to the public at large or taking government funds to do so.

That was never on the table: such talk is simply disinformation to justify the irrational notion that same-sex couples are really the ones 'taking something away' from someone.

A refreshing take. Thank you reverend.

Religions perform a betrothal ritual, but the union is not legalized until there is a signed document from secular legal officials.

Religions can choose who has a betrothal with God in the present of like minds.

But secular law only recognizes a legal document agreeing to share property and zygotes.

There is a precedent to distinguish between betrothal and marriage.

In the Roman Catholic religion, divorce is not recognized as termination of ritual betrothal. Only annulment, another religious ritual, can terminate betrothal.

So continue to have betrothals exclusively between men and women with your choice of gods.

But legal, secular marriage can inclusively be between men and men, women and women.

"Marriage--gay or heterosexual--should be a right available to every citizen, but never a legal act, ritual, or formal ceremony that any house of worship, denomination, or religious leader should be required to perform in contradiction to their beliefs."

Fine. Moreover, henceforth, any religious institution that weighs in politically on gay civil marriages is to be stripped of its tax exempt status for having violated its requirements.

Thus spake Farnaz.

----------------------------------
Nevermore,

This could be the beginning of the economic recovery you mentioned earlier on another thread. Believe me, they'll never be able to keep quiet on this one. After that, we move on to stem cell research, a woman's right to choice, etc.

Farnaz

"Marriage--gay or heterosexual--should be a right available to every citizen, but never a legal act, ritual, or formal ceremony that any house of worship, denomination, or religious leader should be required to perform in contradiction to their beliefs."

And that is why in other western counties, the legally binding ceremony is held in a courthouse with a certified city/state/federal employee and not in church.

The religious ceremony is the "fluff" that people of faith may desire, but not the "bread and butter" of the marriage. Although, some, including my sister-in-law will celebrate their anniversary not on the date of the legal ceremony, but on the religious one.

Some people just can't be helped!