On Marriage Equality and Religious Freedoms

I’m (among other things) liberal, atheist, lesbian, spiritual, vegetarian. I was a Christian from age eight to somewhere in my 29th year. I’ve studied Psychology and Sociology formally and many other subjects informally. For 20 years I worked in Human Services, mostly with adults who have developmental disabilities and adults who have mental illnesses, but also with homeless families. I contribute what I can to organized charities such as America’s Second Harvest, The Humane Society of the US and Doctors Without Borders as well as to “non-organized charities” (so to speak). In short, I try to do good to and for people.

I also refuse to force, either by proselytization or by any other means, other people to live by my beliefs (or lack thereof). For example, I am a vegetarian but I would never demand others become vegetarians nor would I even advocate that they do so. I am an atheist, but I would never try to convince others to give up their belief in god(s) or demand legislation that prohibited religion. I wish to be free to live my life so long as I don’t cause harm to others, and I’ll leave others to be free so long as they don’t cause harm to me. If it harm no one, do as ye will.

For the purposes of the next argument, this graphic will represent me and a hypothetical woman I might want to marry in the future:



My partner and I want to get Married. Yes, I said Married. We don’t want to get Civil-Unioned or Domestic-Partnered, regardless of infinite promises that said bondings will provide the same rights and obligations as Marriage. New Jersey and Vermont experiments with CU/DP prove, once again, that “Separate but Equal” simply isn’t. Legal Marriage provides more than 1,000 federal benefitsthat no state-based CP/DP can provide, nor can state-by-state Marriage. We need a federally recognized and supported Marriage, just like heterosexual couples have.

Now this picture represents Family X:



Mom and dad of Family X state that they are Christians . They oppose the right of me and my partner to have a federally recognized Marriage because according to their deeply held religious beliefs homosexuality is wrong. In fact, to them I am on par with murderers, thieves, child abusers and drug addicts because I love a woman rather than a man. Nothing I am, stand for or do overcomes the fact that I am a lesbian. I am an “abomination” in their eyes. They voted for the Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in their state, and they consistently vote for politicians who oppose equal rights for LGBT people.

Now here is my question, and it is a simple one:

Why does Family X feel they have the right to force me, my partner, and millions of others like us, to live according to the dictates of their religion?

If same-sex marriage became legal tomorrow, those opposed would not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. Churches opposed to same-sex marriage would not be required to marry same-sex couples just as they’re not required to marry couples of faiths other than their own. Nobody’s deeply held religious beliefs would be constrained in any way by providing equal marriage rights to gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans.

Even my Democratic politicans feel the need to pander to those who want to keep me from having equal marriage rights, or (worse yet) agree that I don’t deserve equal marriage rights. So I ask again, and hope for some logical answers:

Why does Family X feel they have the right to force me, my partner, and millions of others like us, to live according to the dictates of their religion?

Does not convey the right to compel others to act in accordance with one's own religious beliefs, nor does it convey the right to live without the spectacle of other people acting in a manner contrary to one's own religious beliefs.

When they forbid me things (marriage rights, employment protection, hate-crimes protection, etc.) because of what their religious beliefs dictate.

Does the Federal Government have the moral right to enforce a monogamous form of marriage and outlaw the Mormon view of marriage as it existed prior to Utah being admitted to the Union?

No. According to the Bible marriage existed between a man, any number of women and who knows how many concubines. So there goes any of the "one man, one woman" argument anyone might want to raise while citing Judeo-Christian tradition/the Bible. And as long as all parties are consenting adults I don't see what the issue is.

children, which is what is happening with the FLDS church.

ETA: I have no problem with whatever relationship consenting adults engage in.

personally I believe that as long as civil unions are accorded equal status by the feds, churches can have their marriages and 50% divorce rates too.

BTW, if this scenario comes to pass, you can be "married" in a universalist unitarian church and some others, thus getting full civil union benefits and a designation of married.

Msongs

If a civil union/domestic partnership is 'just as good' or 'different to marriage in name only,' then what's the point of creating them instead of allowing for gay couples to marry?

Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships, no matter how well-intentioned, don't work. People and/or corporations will always try to find a way around the rules/laws to keep same-sex couples from getting what is due to them unless they have a federally recognized legal Marriage.

Seperate But Equal never is. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. No more Colored Waiting Rooms.

Its not just family X. Its also lots and lots of so called gay friendly democrats that do not or refuse to acknowledge that it not just changing laws but standing up for principle.

We could pass all the laws we want but that will not change how society views GLBT citizens. Thats one thing, that if you read all the Obama threads regarding McClurkin, that some of the supporters do not get. They point out his positive voting record - its not the best, but HRC rated him at 88% - but fail to see that while he votes correctly he does nothing to stand up the the rhetoric that causes way more harm to the youth than any law could ever rectify.

Its time we as democrats demand better - not just of Obama - but all candidates. Its time we demand they fight the rhetoric that has placed us in bondage for thousands of years. Its time we demand they do more than say they do not agree with hateful views - its time we demand they stop the rhetoric and make it taboo for ever.

Which is why I bemoaned my Democratic politicians who pander to people like Family X, or even act as they do. It's wrong and it needs to stop. We don't let allow the rights of blacks, women, Hispanics or other such groups to be legally denied based on people's religious beliefs and prejudices. Why do we continue to allow LGBT rights to be denied because of them?

K&R :pals:

:hi:

vegetation too. Get teased by those meat eaters. I'm Catholic, but want women to be able to be priests, and or Pope. I get teased for that too. I get a bit of a reprieve because I fall in that family x category.

:hi:

I had always thought that civil-unions were not much different than marriage(regarding rights) if recognized at the federal level. So it was hard for me to understand why so many LGBT's were offended when I pushed for this type of legislation. In my mind it would enable you to be married. Sometimes the simplest explanation is all it takes.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw


again I thank you.

But really they are the "Colored Only" drinking fountains of the 21st century. They keep us separate, unequal, less-than. If we are to have equality we need Marriage, not something masquerading as Marriage.

:hi:

I should have grasped this before since my daughter's relationship was recognized in California then she moved to Oregon, where the laws are different. Where if I should move, no matter what state I wouldn't even have to think about whether are not my marriage would be recognized. I assure you my child is not less-than anyone especially me.:hi:

as they can. Their religious hobby has polluted everything, instead of just not doing something they disagree with, like not having a Gay Marriage, they have to inject their religious nonsense into it and try to ban it. As much as I can not tolerate religion on any level, instead of lobbying to have it banned, I just do not goto church or celebrate any of it's holidays.

Someones after work activities should not be forced upon the rest of the unsubscribed folks. If they don't like Gay Marriage, then they do not have to fucking get one. If we can not marry legally, then they need to ban divorce if marriage is so fucking sacred.

The Dominionists in particular would turn the nation over to God's Law and eradicate other religions (and non-religion). Christianity (their version) would be 24/7/365, or else.


They're a small yet loud and pushy segment of Christianity. What is needed is for the larger and tamer group to tell them to butt out and mind their own business. Religion needs to be something people use to guide their own lives, not something they use to run other peoples' lives.

It's time the RRRW types learn the difference.

:hug:

But married same-sex couples in MA don't have the federal benefits that are provided to married heterosexual couples. Furthermore other states are not required to recognize the unions of same-sex couples married in MA. Until we have the same rights on a federal level we'll still be second-class citizens. :-(

It will happen. I know it!

And for that they deserve a big :applause:. It's time for the rest of the nation to pull the stick out of their backside and move into the 21st century. Equal Marriage Rights Now!