Why does the religious right want to limit the religious freedoms of all christians?
 

So we all know that there are at least a few christian denominations who endorse and perform gay marriages. What i don't get is how endorsing the prohibition of gay marriage doesn't amount to limiting the free expression of religion. In short, how can you be anti-gay marriage and still be pro-constitution?

As far as I know, gay marriage is not a cornerstone of any religious order. Polygamy is acceptable under certain religious doctrine yet is not abided by law.

As with just about every aspect of the Constitution there is wiggle room for different beliefs. Certainly the courts don't abide by that wiggle room but people absolutely do.

There is freedom of religion but only if that religion conforms to existing laws. I could bring up the worship of Baal again, but I think I would have a hard time convincing the courts to allow me to sacrifice children. This would explain their desire to have a constitutional amendment. It not only changes the law but takes it out of the hands of the courts. I personally don't really give a crap about gay marriage, but a large majority of Americans are opposed to the concept, even in areas which are considered liberal. You could also argue why would those who support gay marriage wish to impose their will against the will of the people.

Democracy can be oppressive too.

Humanity is oppresive.

I know you know the difference between child sacrifice and gay marriage. Rights guaranteed by the constitution seem to be limited when it is in the best interest of society, i.e. child sacrifice and polygamy(a questionable assertion), yelling fire in a theater. The question that continues to go unanswered is first, what is this greivous injury that gay marriage will supposedly inflict upon our society and second, why is it necessary to violate one of the foundations of our national identity in order to prevent it?

I hear you. For the record i think polygamy should be legal for the same reason that gay marriage should be legal. Here's the thing. If we interpret the constitution as protecting the religious freedoms of the minority and this issue somehow goes to court based on this idea and gay marriage becomes legitimized how do you think the most vocal critics of gay marriage would react? Already we have judges interpreting the constitution just like they're supposed to being denounced as "activists". I would predict a 99% chance of irony in the form of massive, religiously motivated public outcry.

I guess what i'm getting at is those who would have the supposed greatest interest in seeing that religious rights be protected are actually anti-religious freedom when it comes to freedoms that don't conform to their own dogma. "No shit", you say. This seems like a fundamently unsound way of going about things. How is it possible for some people to be anti gay marriage and pro-"ten commandments in the courthouse"?

I think one of the main reasons polygamy was banned was the fact that polygamists tend to marry girls who are very young 40 year old marrying an 14 year old ect. These girls are brainwashed from birth and it is almost a cultic socieity. Polygamists still exist in Utah and though I have never seen them (only been here a few months) this is what I have heard.

As for gay marriage, if it doesn't hurt anyone let them do it. Soandso getting married in no way hurts me nor anyone else so let them do it. If it makes them happy then it has served their pupurpose. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happieness"

There are too many reasons why people are for or against this issue to sum it up solely in religious terms I think.

Personally, I see the whole issue as a bunch of bullshit brought about by radicals on both sides to spout their beliefs in the politcally correct atmosphere of today. Certainly homosexuality has gained enough widespread acceptance to deny most anti-gay groups the ability to rail against its practice in any reasonable format. The pro-gay rights groups are equally hamstrung by society's unwillingness to take the issue as seriously as they want it taken.

If it was really only about getting the same rights for a gay couple as a hetero couple they could just as easily be pushing for civil unions. If it was just about denying rights to homosexual couples then there wouldn't be a significant portion of the population for civil unions but against gay marriage. Instead it becomes more a battle of recognition and blessing of the practice than about the rights of the couple.

Just my .02. FWIW, I am for civil unions that allow all the same rights as a hetero married couple and I would expect the same rules to apply to these unions that apply to hetero marriages (divorce, alimony, child support, living wills, etc).

Polygamy doesn't matter to me either way. If the husband (or wife) with the many spouses can reasonably support them all then I'm all for it. If, however, they end up relying on the government to support them then I'm against it. There are problems that arise from its recognition though. Let's say wife number three wants a divorce. Does that wife have to file against the husband and all other wives separately? How would a division of assets work? I'm sure it could all be worked out but it seems like a real PITA.

I agree, it would be a real pain in the ass. Most things worthwhile are.

I wouldn't really care about the word marriage either, except that it so often seems like such a straw man argument. Just once i want someone to just come out and say, "Look, gay people make me uncomfortable and i feel like them being able to use the word marriage would somehow mean that my hetero-relationship would have something in common with a homosexual relationship, which is something i can't deal with." That would be lovely, but nobody is going to say that because a) it's not p.c. and b) it is either a very simplistic argument and easily exposed as irrational or people generally percieve it as very simplistic argument and easily exposed as irrational.

There is seemingly no personal responsibility in any argument against gay marriage. There is only the: i'm no homophobe, but __________. Fill in the blank with tradition, or diction, or some undefinable threat to society lurking ominously just beyond the horizon. At this point i can only vaguely summarize all of the anti-gay marriage arguments that i have heard, because every time i ask for clarification i'm left hanging or the terms of the debate are changed. In short, the arguments sound good until you put them to some kind of critical test, and then they collapse.

this topic has been brought up repeatedly. It's easy to assume that any argument against gay marriage is summed up with "I'm no homophobe but.....fill in the blank with tradition, diction, or some undefinabe threat to society lurking ominously just beyond the horizon." To turn the tables a bit, and putting that philosophy on the defensive side of things, when one is arguing for gay marriage start with the question:

Is there any societal benefit to a traditional, nuclear family. If not, why? If not, what is the benefit of opening up the interpretation of marriage, but keeping the institution itself. In essence, it seems like that argument wants to keep the institution (perhaps to passify those who are for the "traditional" version), but open up the institution to however one wants to interpret it.

I guess, what's the point? it seems to me, to be honest with yourselves, you'd approach the arugment with...."marriage as an instituion is outdated", and then explain your position. It looks like that's what your doing, without the conviction.

"Instead it becomes more a battle of recognition and blessing of the practice than about the rights of the couple."

Which has been my problem since the get go. It seems more than a legal issue, i'm all for the legal side of it, it seems the battle now is like you said a "blessing" of it.

I remember the argument being: "why should you care what you do if it doesn't affect you, let us live how we want." It just doesn't seem like that's good enough anymore.

Polygamy..jeez, that's a whole other matter. Okay, marry as many people as you want. You ever see it happening that one woman is gonna marry 10 guys? doubtfull. One guy marrying 10 women, yup. HOLD THE BOAT!!! Yeah this dynamic is gonna elevate feminism to a whole new level.

I forgot my point...it doesn't seem like anyone is arguing for the instituion anymore, it just seems like everyone is afraid to admit it.

The real question is who defines what marriage is? Fundamentalist Christians only? Although this has been said before, this smacks of the misceganation laws of not too long ago. Really, it's only a matter of time before this issue is dead, as our fairly conservative Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not constitutional (duh). the only thing that stands in the way is the collective ignorance of our fellow citizens. Hmmmm, maybe I don't feel so confident any more :)

"the only thing that stands in the way is the collective ignorance of our fellow citizens"

incredible, i was thinking the same thing. Where do we go from here?

We can have some sort of digital love-in, but first you have to drop the argument that gay marriage is anti-feminist.

while i agree that to some extent the gay marriage thing has been pushed more for the acceptance than for the law of it, the fact is that civil unions aren't the same as marriage. that's part of the problem. i think if civil unions were to be exactly the same as marriage accept in name, then there wouldn't be quite the same problem.

To those who think that the gay marriage fight has little to do with the legal argument, ask yourself why this fight didn't start in any large way until the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy laws? It was at that point that gay activists knew that equal protection under the law had finally come to them and they now intend to take the rights that are owed to them as citizens.

Well that and it was nearing an election year.

I don't think it had much to do with it at all. The two sides have been looking for something to "debate" in the current political climate and they decided on this. It makes for quite a bit of good press with good sound bites, stirs up both the pro and anti gay activists, and offers plenty of great photo ops.

Believe me, gay marriage was the last issue that Democrat's wanted to deal with this election year. Some would argue that the issue plays right into Republican's hands.

You can believe that the timing of this is all coincidental, but I happen to think that those pushing this issue are smart enough to notice that they suddenly have a legal leg to stand on and to react accordingly.

I agree the Dems weren't looking for this to happen now (or anytime soon). The activists on both sides took the opportunity to try to get as much media attention as possible.

Thus is the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Amended July, 1868.

Note that it says privileges, not rights. Marraige is a privilege. Saying gays can't get married is analogous to saying gays can't get drivers licenses or use public bathrooms.

Therefore, I argue that the states that have banned same-sex marraige have acted in defiance of the 14th amendment, and the supreme court should overturn these laws.

man, how do i count the ways? christians aren't trying to limit religious freedom. i'm seriously doubting any christian could care if a mosque or temple started marrying gays (should it ever become legal in the area in question)... they are concerned with what is done in churches, done under the same label as their own. this argument is, of course, concerned with the idea of acceptance within the church... and not the legal battle. two separate issues.


you've got to understand that saying that one thing is right and that another is wrong isn't limiting religious freedom. to say that all people should accept all things is infringing upon their religious freedom as well.

how can you be pro-constitution when you demand that people should automatically accept the whims of society and be as liberal as their left-fringe wants to take them?

I'd argue that many, if not most, opponents of gay marriage wish to see it banned from this coutry entirely, not just kept out of their church. I wish it were that simple. Hell, we wouldn't have people trying to write discrimination into the Constitution if that were true.

When you have people going out there asking for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, yeah, I think it's pretty national...

i listed that caveat in one of my earlier posts. i'm pretty sure this thread is directed at the implications of churches granting marriages, not anything to do with state or federal law.

there is a big difference between marriage in a legal sense and having church doctrine allow for gay marriage by clergy. i could be wrong, but that is the purpose of the discussion i gleaned from the title and original post.

THis thread is about the Religious Right and about questioning how one can be anti-gay yet pro-Constitution. This is about American freedom and rights more than religion.

You can make the abstract distinction, but in practice i think you'll find that the most strident opponents of gay marriage are religious people claiming that their religion has dominion over the proper usage of the word marriage. The most vocal critics of homosexuality have always argued from a religious perspective. What they are really saying without really saying it is "My religion owns the absolute definition of marriage and no other religions have the right to define marriage as they see it."

There is always the secular state definition of marriage, but in calling it marriage has the state not commited itself to using a religious word? Perhaps the state should stop offering marriage licences to anybody and offer civil union licences to everybody, regardless of the gender of those involved. Would that make you happy? That way marriage would be completely seperate from legality and we wouldn't have to get caught up over the definition of a word.

filtherton, that is my exact position on the issue of marriage licenses.

drop them all from a civil perspective and grant civil unions to everyone.


Why is that not an option to christian conservatives?

Or is it? I haven't heard them say it is. That reluctance to support what I view as an equitable treatment of the issue leads me to conclude their opposition has less to do with maintaining traditional religious values and more to do with infusing their religiousity into the civic domain.