S/O Gay Marriage Poll

[swissair81]

Employment law is different!! And even with that--employment law still can't force churches to accept female priests or even openly gay clergy.

Why is that? Because the federal government thinks it should be able to regulate religious beliefs. Until they stop thinking that, many religious people will continue to be afraid that their religious beliefs will be infringed on by liberals who increasingly think all religion is bunk and it doesn't matter what your religious laws say, because they think differently.

[Giantbear]

Really? So birth control and abortions being legal didn't lead to the entire country ganging up on Catholic institutions because it is against their religion to provide them?

Parochial private schools don't have to prove that they are equal opportunity employers? They don't have problems in certain places when they don't want to admit children who aren't of their religion according to their rules? It seems to me that they should be able to choose who is a member of their religion and who is an appropriate religious role model without the government or courts getting involved. Yet this is not the case.

If the government would truly stay out of religions and their beliefs, that would be one thing, but we all know they don't.

ETA: I'm sure these won't be popular positions. Religious people should have the right to follow the dictates of their religions in peace. That's why we call this a free country. So if we can agree that I won't bother you and you won't bother me, that would be awesome. I don't care what anyone else does, and I don't want anyone telling me what to do. That is all.

Following your logic, if a religion allowed gay marriage, then you would be in support of it under a freedom of religion doctrine? This is why i want to separate the government role in unions from marriage. I know many people who are for equal civil unions but against gay marriage. Seems odd, but many make associate the word marriage with the religious ceremony, when, in realty, the word carries with it two different meanings, one secular and one religious.

[Green_Tea]

Employment law is different!!

Exactly. If a religious organization acts as an employer (school, hospital, even a church with paid staff) and pays its employees, they need to follow the employment laws of the country in which they operate. This affords both the organization and the employees certain legal rights, AND it means that there might be rules they need to follow that they don't agree with. I don't see how religious organizations that pay salaries to their staff should be allowed to play by a different set of rules - especially if those rules violate the rights of US citizens - than any other for not-for-profit or for-profit organization.

[swissair81]

Following your logic, if a religion allowed gay marriage, then you would be in support of it under a freedom of religion doctrine? This is why i want to separate the government role in unions from marriage. I know many people who are for equal civil unions but against gay marriage. Seems odd, but many make associate the word marriage with the religious ceremony, when, in realty, the word carries with it two different meanings, one secular and one religious.

I am in support of religions being able to practice their beliefs freely without legal or other harassment. I do not support religions harassing other people to get them to follow their beliefs. I am also a supporter people who are not of organized religion to do whatever the heck they want, as long as they aren't trying to make other people follow their own beliefs or lack thereof.

To use an example, I am not a fan of people who try to convert me because I do not believe in their deity. I am also not a fan of people who tell me that x religious practice is wrong because they say so, and it doesn't matter if my religion has rules/regulations/beliefs on the practice they believe is immoral.

In conclusion, I do not care if gay marriage is legal or not, as long as you don't force your beliefs on me.

[iaam]

100% in support of same sex marriage and have yet to hear a single well reasoned, logical argument for why it should not be legal.

I feel the same way. Very strongly.

[Green_Tea]

Why is that? Because the federal government thinks it should be able to regulate religious beliefs. Until they stop thinking that, many religious people will continue to be afraid that their religious beliefs will be infringed on by liberals who increasingly think all religion is bunk and it doesn't matter what your religious laws say, because they think differently.

Swissair, I am not trying to make you upset or pick on you at all. I like you VERY MUCH, and I know how important your faith is to you.

What I don't understand is this - do you believe that any religiously affiliated employer should be able to do whatever they want in terms of hiring/firing/benefits they offer, and that their employees should have no legal protections at all? The way I see it is this: If a religious organization wants to employ people in a country - any country - they need to play by that country's employment rules. The laws of our nation should be applied evenly to ALL employers. If a certain organization does not agree with those laws, they can chose not to set up shop here, or they can work to change the laws. But until they do, they must follow them.

Again, please take this comment in the spirit in which it is intended, which is one of pure curiosity about your views. I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but I really want to understand your POV.

[mommylamb]

Sorry, but the argument that religions will be forced to marry people they, as a religion, do not recognize as having a right to marry makes no sense, and today proves that point. Orthodox Jews do not believe in marrying outside of the faith, and no one forces an orthodox Rabbi to marry a Jew and a non-Jew. And this is the same for every religion which has restrictions. In all religions, the officiator is really performing two ceremonies, one on behalf of the state and the other on behalf of the religion. A homosexual couple could no more force a priest to marry them than my jewish wife and i could force that same priest to marry us.

I totally agree. I think the idea that if gay marriage were legal from a government perspective that it's a slippery slope to government forcing churches to marry gays (or anyone who they don't want to marry) is fear mongering, plain and simple. And I agree with StantonHyde and Green Tea that employment law is totally different because those religions are choosing to act as employers in a society where those laws exist and/or take advantage of 501c3 tax status as bestowed by the government under our tax code. Doing those things requires a trade off because it means you're choosing to play in the sandbox so to speak.

[swissair81]

Swissair, I am not trying to make you upset or pick on you at all. I like you VERY MUCH, and I know how important your faith is to you.

What I don't understand is this - do you believe that any religiously affiliated employer should be able to do whatever they want in terms of hiring/firing/benefits they offer, and that their employees should have no legal protections at all? The way I see it is this: If a religious organization wants to employ people in a country - any country - they need to play by that country's employment rules. The laws of our nation should be applied evenly to ALL employers. If a certain organization does not agree with those laws, they can chose not to set up shop here, or they can work to change the laws. But until they do, they must follow them.

Again, please take this comment in the spirit in which it is intended, which is one of pure curiosity about your views. I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but I really want to understand your POV.

Listen- up front, I don't feel picked on. By anyone. I was not forced to join this conversation. I chose to. I like and respect all of you guys. I will warn you in the beginning that I am not the best debater or the most articulate member of my religion. I will do my best to explain my position. If I fail at that, that is my personal failure, and not that of my religion (disclaimer over).

I agree there are laws in this country. I also agree that there is separation of church and state- and for good reason. Religions should not have the right to dictate to any members of the public, what they should think feel or believe. This is why there is no prayer in public school, and other such things. In the school system my kids are going to (as an example), I expect that all the influences on them are representative of my beliefs. Therefore, according to that, all the teachers who teach religious studies should have similar beliefs, the teachers who teach secular studies should be obligated to follow the school's code of conduct, dress code, etc. If someone violates that code of conduct, I would not want my school to employ them because they are in charge of teaching my children. School is not just to learn subjects, but also about our lifestyle. If I sent my kids to public school, I would not be allowed to have that expectation, or any expectation other than that the teachers will follow the state curriculum.
As for hospitals, I am not sure, because there are no Jewish hospitals that operate under Jewish law in this country as far as I know. There are such hospitals in Israel, and every employee is expected to follow the rules of the hospital. Things like kosher needs everyone's participation.

[wellyes]

I wonder what requirements would change if the Catholic church was willing to forego its tax exempt status. The Amish are free to discriminate in employment, aren't they? I realize this is out there but I have to think there are steps the church could take, if they wanted autonomy .

[AnnieW625]

I'll be the first to say here that I voted that I am now okay with gay marriage, but at one point in my life I was not. When I was 18-20 I voted in favor of the original California proposition to not have gay marriage in California. At the time I knew I had a great aunt who is a lesbian and my entire life I had known her partners (she was with the first for 20+ yrs, and has been with the second now for almost 20) and around the time I was 14 my parents told me that she was a lesbian. I didn't care, but for a long time I was still under the assumption that marriage was between a man or woman. I had never met two gay people that had ever wanted to marry so it wasn't something I thought about then anyway. Then in my mid 20s some our good family friends (one of them was like my second mom growing up) came out of the closet, and about a year later one of the woman's daughter did as well. Even my mom who was best friends with one of the women, and had been when she was married to man was taken a back by it all. It took a couple of years, but then when gay marriage became legal in California for a short time a few years back the couple married and we all just kind of realized this is really cool and that if people want to marry and they want to pay taxes as a married couple and if they get divorced go through that whole ordeal then why deny them the right. Sorry that was kind of long, but that was my journey to realizing that gay marriage is okay.

Really? So birth control and abortions being legal didn't lead to the entire country ganging up on Catholic institutions because it is against their religion to provide them?

Completely agree with this 100%. I am Catholic and I used birth control before I was married. I did it just in case and also always in the back of my mind was a "what if under some horrid condition I was raped" while living away at school. My parents had no issues with me taking it. I had an abortion due to life threatening chromosome disorder my baby had, which was the hardest decision I have ever had to and most likely will ever have to make in my entire life. I don't go parading that fact around (about 5 people IRL know what I did (my parents, my brother, sister, my DCP, and two other friends); my ils, grandparents, and extended family don't even know), and I am not proud of it, but I was able to make that choice on my own. I have always had insurance that allows me to not have medical care at a Catholic hospital if that is what I want. It doesn't make me less Catholic or religious at all, I just don't want to be told I can't make decisions for myself.

Parochial private schools don't have to prove that they are equal opportunity employers? They don't have problems in certain places when they don't want to admit children who aren't of their religion according to their rules? It seems to me that they should be able to choose who is a member of their religion and who is an appropriate religious role model without the government or courts getting involved. Yet this is not the case.

If the government would truly stay out of religions and their beliefs, that would be one thing, but we all know they don't.

ETA: I'm sure these won't be popular positions. Religious people should have the right to follow the dictates of their religions in peace. That's why we call this a free country. So if we can agree that I won't bother you and you won't bother me, that would be awesome. I don't care what anyone else does, and I don't want anyone telling me what to do. That is all.

Again I completely agree with these statements. At my DD1's school while it is a Catholic school they admit children of all races and religions. I don't see many of the teachers at church also, but my only concern and maybe it isn't an issue to some would be that the religion teacher be Catholic as well because Catechism has some quirks (and honestly as a life long Catholic I don't understand all of it).

Why is that? Because the federal government thinks it should be able to regulate religious beliefs. Until they stop thinking that, many religious people will continue to be afraid that their religious beliefs will be infringed on by liberals who increasingly think all religion is bunk and it doesn't matter what your religious laws say, because they think differently.

again couldn't have said it better myself.