That said not sure what this shows except that some religious groups are ok with SSM.
I don’t see why that helps anything. These things are always about a difference of opinion. Elsewhere on this Board we have shown (or rather no one has shown otherwise) that there is no rational reason to oppose SSM unless “rational” can be equated to a belief.
Well it makes it a Constitutional issue. If marriage is a religious issue and some people believe in SSM then the government’s ban on SSM is the government “respecting an establishment of religion”, and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” for others.
The SSM ban is no different than a law saying everyone must attend church on tuesday.
I’m not sure what you think the point of this thread might be. There are fewer than a handful of posters who have ever opposed SSM based on their religious beliefs and not one of those posters is particularly deft at debate.
You’d be better off starting this thread (politely) on an actual religion-based message board.
This is liable to be little better than a fact-free, logic-free pile-on that gets shut down or moved to the Pit.
Except it isn’t. The state isn’t interested in the religious aspects of marriage at all. (note, I am not saying that this debate isn’t based in religion, it’s just that the marriage we’re talking about here is unrelated to religious marriage)
They don’t care to have your local Archdiocese sign off on your divorce from your Catholic spouse, they don’t care if said Archdiocese won’t recognize your remarriage, they don’t care if you think you got married at the local Zoroastrian ceremony if you didn’t apply and pay for a marriage license (excepting common law marriage!)
No, no, no. Religious persecution is the persecution of people for practising their religion. The motives of the persecutor – whether they be religious or secular – are irrelevant. Stalin, for example, engaged in religious persecution out of secular convictions. Consequently I think your argument is that, because SSM is endorsed by certain religious groups, anybody who objects to SSM and seeks to exclude it by law is engaged in religious persecution, not just those who are motivated to do this by their own religious views.
But does your argument apply to SSM only? If your argument is correct, then if any practice is endorsed or mandated by a religious group, attempts to suppress it by law constitute “religious persecution”. But apply that argument to, say, child marriages or sutee and it starts to look a little thin.
And if marriage is a religious issue and some people do not believe in SSM, then the government’s endorsement of SSM is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion and establishing the religion of others. It cuts both ways.
One of the reasons for the separation of church and state is to prevent the state from interfering in religious practice and belief. The government does not get to favor one religious belief over another.
All these kinds of arguments have to be resolved on secular terms only.
Marriage is only a religious issue to some. As an atheist, it most certainly isn’t a religious issue to me. What’s more, government legalisation of SSM does not prohibit opponents from the free exercise of their religion. They don’t have to have a SSM. As a muslim, your religion would prevent you from drinking alcohol or borrowing or lending money. That doesn’t stop the government making it legal in defiance of your faith.
Saying marriage is in “the providence of religion” means the government can’t take one side or the other. Simply because if this is true then by the First Amendment it has to either recognize all types of marriage, including SSM, or none at all. Anything less is pure discrimination and government sanctioned persecution. Now the government isn’t going to get rid of hetromarriage. It just isn’t politically feasible. So inline with the Constitution it must recognize all kinds of marriage.
Now if you want to say it isn’t a religious issue then okay, but anyone saying Marriage is religiously defined and prohibits SSM doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s a bad argument, just like a law saying you should be forced to attend church on tuesday and worship Ba’al would be.
Anyone who wouldn’t support the Ba’al law but makes a religious argument against SSM being legalized is a hypocrite at best.
Tao’s Revenge, the First Amendment permits the restriction of religious practice by the state, but forbids the restriction of religious belief. A restriction can’t be based on animosity towards the religion, however.
For example (simplification time), ritual slaughter of animals can be prohibited. What you cannot do, for example, is pass a law that prevents halal meat being produced but allows kosher meat to be produced.
You cannot prevent prisoners from believing that filet mignon is a sacrament, and they are going to hell if they do not eat it once a week (actual case). But that does not mean you are required as a prison to feed the prisoner who professes such belief filet mignon once a week.
To take it to the ultimate extreme, you can’t be prevented from believing that absent the sacrifice of a virgin, the winter will never end. But if you go ahead and knife your neighbor’s 8 year old daughter, you are going to do some serious time.
I don’t think you need to restrict the argument to SSM. Any discrimination stemming from the belief that gay is sin is tantamount to religious persecution. One religion says homosexuality is sinful. Another doesn’t.
I believe homosexuality is a de facto religion. Anyone being fired ‘for being gay’ is the same to me as someone being fired ‘for being Jewish.’
Of course the gays and lesbians in charge don’t actually pursue this line of argument since religion is a CHOICE and sexual orientation is not. Which, upon inspection, is ironic.
If you reread my OP you’ll note I’m addressing the idea that marriage should be religiously defined. Secular state marriage is outside the scope of this debate. What we’re looking at is the idea that marriage “should be the providence of religion” as a few posters here put fourth. Such an idea is fatally flawed when marriage is recognized by the government. Your argument makes sense from the context of marriage not being a religious thing because the government bans theft and murder regardless of religion. If it banned murder with the exception of old testament stonings for adultery then it’s be like the current system, assuming the premise we’re debating in this thread.