Skip to main content

View Diary: Should Liberals Dis the Bible? (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Iowa Supreme Court decision for marriage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SchuyH

    equality was quite explicit about the freedom of religious communities to define marriage for their community however they liked. A Roman Catholic priest won't marry two Buddhists, and no one would propose forcing him to do that.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:26:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't ignore the fears of some religious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Batya the Toon

      communities.  

      Remember, religious ministers are not just performing religious ceremonies.  They are ALSO licensed to perform civil ceremonies -- a religious service,by a minister licensed to perform civil marriages, is both.  

      While religious communities do not believe they will be forced to perform religious services that violate their religion, they ARE concerned that government will say, if you want to be licensed to perform CIVIL ceremonies, you have to agree to perform same-sex marriages. It's not that they believe that people will force certain churches to hold same-sex marriages.  It's that they are concerned that government will withdraw their license to perform CIVIL marriages if they don't agree to include same-sex couples. That's not as unrealistic a concern.

      That's why I lumped them in with say, the person singing at the wedding, or the florist, or whatever. It's the providing of a service that is not a religious prayer service, but that does implicate their religious beliefs, that concerns them.  

      Right now, the florist, the singer, etc. can refuse to provide wedding services to you if they just don't like you, if you are too difficult of a customer, etc.  If they were reassured that they could turn down business for religious reasons and not get sued for doing that, you'd find a lot of the opposition in some religious communities evaporating.  And it would give them an out -- it's a sort of "libertarian" view of social issues -- people can believe what they want, but no one can be forced to participate in something that they think violates their religious beliefs.

      What I think gives some in religious communities pause is the attitude among some on the left -- including many here -- that certain religious views are bigoted, evil, stupid, contemptible, and should be treated as such, and wiped out if at all possible.  There's an attitude by some that a religious view that they don't like should not be tolerated, much less respected. That's fine if people want to think that individually. But when you start getting government policy, or law, involved, that becomes problematic.

      That's also why I think that the state-by-state solution is best for the country long-term.  Most state laws are written to respect differing religious views, protecting the rights of people not to participate in ceremonies that violate their religious views. A sweeping ruling saying that the Equal Protection clause mandates that same-sex couples be treated,for purposes of marriage, exactly like opposite sex couples would not preserve such protections, and would engender, I think, a backlash, much the way I (and others like Justice Ginsburg) think  Roe v. Wade did.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (70)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Memorial Day (26)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site