A probable solution for the issue of same sex marriage that protects religious right, and civil liberties. by Frank Brooks
(libertarian)
Friday, August 6, 2010
The ruling is set for same sex couples in San Francisco, and a turning point for their right to marry has been made. It is widely known by Americans across the board that San Francisco is the center of homosexual politics, and expression. The right to marry has been a same sex conquest for decades and in this last decade has been more widely debated than ever.
Now in San Francisco the issue has more fuel than ever, and has been flip flopped by vote, and court ruling for a permanent decision. Same sex minorities want their right to be officially eloped, and the straight majority wants the institution of marriage to remain traditional. Really both sides of the issue have solid points in their beliefs over the whole situation. Same sex couples want to be allowed to do what straight ones are doing, and consider it normal in a form of a relationship to be able to get married. People who honor the traditional form of marriage consider being married a significant occasion for a man, and a woman that blesses them to have children in a condoned way. This allows them the value of starting a family.
Religion is the biggest wedge between the issues of same sex marriage. Christian fundamentalists feel this is blasphemy, and abomination. When you look at their point of view really it is what their religion practices. They are only speaking out following the teachings of their religion. The same religious concept of banning same sex marriage is also supported by Islam, and Judaism. Those are the major three but there are many others that follow.
What is being perceived and what is angering the religious groups against Gay, and Lesbian marriages is they are being eloped "religiously" under the name of God. This is what is grinding their gears, and causing all the uproar from their side of the debate. Clearly in their measure of defense they have not just a good case but an excellent case. It says nothing in the Bible, Koran, or Torah about same sex couples getting married nor in many other religious teachings. In fact it does not condone homosexual relationships but forbids them. So who is to say religious people have no grounds to back their cause because they do. It is written in the scriptures they worship from.
It really does not make any sense how a priest or even a Voodoo Doctor could marry a same sex couple when they are not supposed to be doing that in the first place or even conceiving the values of marriage by a book that condemns it. From a religious standpoint that is blasphemy, and it is going against the word they follow. Nothing is politically incorrect about them protecting their religious sanctity. They feel same sex marriage is an intrusion of their religious practices, and violating their freedoms to hold marriage as a sacred bond between a man, and a woman.
Since marrying religions do not offer the approval of homosexual bond that does not mean that same sex couples should be treated any different from anyone else. They have their right to be protected under civil liberties, and equality. That is why the concept of a Civil Union marriage should be imposed. It protects the rights of both traditional religion, and same sex marriage. Not to say that Gays and Lesbians are not religious because that would be inaccurate. Opting Civil Union just justifies that homosexuality is a life choice, and not a religion itself. Nobody ever said a gay couple could not attend church, and I hardly doubt anyone would disallow their right to be there even if they were married. It would be unusual for people to erupt and point the finger in a house of worship.
As far as this debate is going it looks like same sex marriage is going to happen, and continue to be a fight for liberties across the nation. What needs to be addressed is that homosexuals are following guidelines for their rights, and their opposition is following religious rules. That is why it seems like a war when the issue is brought up. What should be done is that both sides need to meet in the middle and agree on something that protects the religious bond between a man, and a woman, and the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians. The real clear answer to this entire problem is the arrangement of Civil Unions.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Frank Brooks only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Frank Brooks is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I don't understand why you believe that most people’s interpretation of religious law should have any impact on civil law.
Here is what we know:
We know that there are churches out there who understand the Bible is such a way that they have no problem performing same sex marriages and that there are also churches who do not feel constrained by the Bible, Talmud or Koran such as the Unitarian Universalists.
We know that the purpose of civil law isn't to adjudicate religious disputes between churches.
We know that the State has no compelling reason to prevent same sex couples from engaging in the same contractual arrangement as opposite sex couples.
So what this all really comes down to is… can the majority constrain the rights of a minority when that right does nothing to harm the majority other than offend their religious sensibilities.
That's not really a difficult question to answer... It is inappropriate for the majority to place religious constraints on the minority and to prevent them from marrying who they will in their own churches.
Posted By: Frank Brooks
Date: August 7, 2010 05:50:09 AM
Maybe so if that is there interpertation of the religious point of view. Maybe they might seek a new religion that is Gay friendly and takes that part of the religious texts out of their books. In standardaized religion it is forbidden that homosexuality to occur even without marriage. I am only trying to make a point that suits both parties on the issue. The religious protesters want their voice heard as well. To say they don't have a say in this debate is one sided on the subject. I was merely trying to promote compromise, and equal liberty. You cannot just change a persons religion because you feel it is wrong because it against your beliefs. That is why freedom of religion is protected. What ever a certain religion may ordain is what they ordain but in order to make a federal case I believe Civil Unions by pass religious riff raff nation wide.
