Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Jeff Hampton, Mar 16, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Just to make my position clear, I am a strong supporter of same-sex marriages.

    However, I think that the local officials who have been conducting same-sex marriages are making a huge mistake.

    Civil disobedience is a fine thing. But a civil servant can not ethically practice civil disobedience as part of his/her job. If you disagree with a law, then resign and do everything you can to change it. But as long as you're obliged by oath to uphold the laws of your community/state/nation you do not ethically have justification to practice civil disobedience. Their foolish actions will ultimately be a detriment to the accpetance of same-sex marriage.

    However, for members of the clergy, it is a very different story. As a member of the clergy, you are not sworn to uphold the laws of any government, you are sworn to uphold the tenets of your church.

    My faith, Unitarian Universalism, does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orentation.

    For a long while, it has not been uncommon for same-sex marriages to be performed by UU ministers. However, there was always the understanding that these would almost certainly not be recognized by the state. But they were recognized by the church. We thought that this was protected by the First Amendment.

    Well, recently a couple of UU ministers in New York performed some same-sex marriages. They did not demand that the state accept this marriage. They simply performed it according to the tenets of our faith.

    They are facing up to 2 years in prison for "solemnizing" a marriage without a license.

    Here's a link to a story about it, if anyone is interested:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3864007,00.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2004
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I wonder if that great civil disobedience champion and Unitarian, Henry David Thoreau, would agree with this statement.

    I am not trying to be contentious.

    I am just curious about this.

    Would he take it into the governmental area or not.

    He was certainly no fan of government.

    I don't know, but it's interesting to ponder.

    While I don't think we can constitutionally deny civil marriages to gays and lesbians, I do think Christian churches have an obligation to abide by Scripture and keep marriage between a man and a woman.
     
  3. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. Surely you realize that today's Unitarian Universalism is not a Christian religion, and practioners have no more obligation to abide by Biblical Scriptures than they do to abide by the Bhagavad-Gita, or any sacred text, or no sacred text at all.

    And if your church wants to define marriage as the union of a man and and a woman, I have no problem with that. I just don't understand why people have a problem (i.e., throwing us in prison) for having different beliefs.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2004
  4. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Kingston, NY is just up the road from New Paltz, NY where the Mayor conducted same-sex marriages.

    Hows about getting government out of the marriage business?
     
  5. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    I could not agree more! I honestly think that government involvement in marriage is a hold-over from the days when the church and the state were indistinguishable.

    I am sure there are lots of people who are certain that their religion is right and that mine is wrong -- the "Gods Hates Fags" people are a good example. I believe (or, at least hope) that most Americans don't buy into such bigotry.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Hi, Jeff,

    I know that most Unitarians don't consider themselves Christian.

    I was a member of and ordained by the First Universalist-Unitarian Church, Horton, Michigan, a member of the UUA, but now a Congregational Christian Church and member of the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches.

    That particular church identified itself as Christian and did not support same-sex marriages.

    There is a growing Christian movement within the UUA, albeit small.

    I respect everyone's religious beliefs. I have great respect for the UUA, especially many of its clergy whom I consider the most educated and scholarly men/women in American theology.

    As a matter of fact, in the recent issue of The Congregationalist, that I received today, there is an article on Jonathan Edwards (Congregationalist) calling him America's greatest theologian.

    I disagree. I would name William Ellery Channing.

    I certainly don't support anyone being thrown in jail for having various religious beliefs.

    I don't think it's the belief, necessarily, it's the practice (abortion, e.g.) in many cases.



     
  7. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    And the UUA had no problem with this? Granted, the UU church is very open, and certainly open to Christianity, but I'm surprised that the UUA would not have a problem with a church that, as part of its doctrine, opposed same-sex marriage.

    Wow. You have such praise for Unitarian Universalism, yet you equate performing same-sex marriage with performing abortion. I don't get it.
     
  8. flipkid

    flipkid New Member

    Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Just musing about this "obligation"

    If it becomes constitutionaly permissible to marry gays and lesbians, I am wondering where that could leave some churches...Since these marriages would be "protected and permissible" by the constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, the church would possibly have to according to the "law of the land" honor the marriage, or risk the eventual discrimination lawsuits that most assuredly will be filed next, repeal of tax exempt status, and 501 (c) 3 status if a church has it. In effect it becomes an end around to force the church that has religious objections to comply with the mandates of society or else suffer great finanical losses. The church will either have to submit to the "law", or revoke it's tax exempt status to maintain the integrity of it's message.

    So following that scenario will money be the "g"od that is followed by many of the churches that are now sitting on the fence or will it be the God of their own respective faith? How many churches (regardless of denomination) are willing to grow smaller, in order to remain true to the convictions of their faith? How many churches (regardless of denomination) will grow because they will tolerate anything the majority is comfortable with, regardless of whether it is right or wrong?

    Just musing aloud. Adaptation is not always a sign of advancement...sometimes it is a sign of avoidance.
     
  9. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    In many (if not most?) European countries a legal marriage is performed by a government clerk. Should a couple desire a church wedding they do it all over again.

    Few churches grow by becoming liberal. In Canada, as the mainstream churches close parish after parish, the churches that teach that there is right and wrong keep growing.
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Jeff,

    I don't know abut now, but the UUA used to believe in congregational autonomy.

    Each congregation used to be free to dictate its own theology and beliefs regarding social issues.

    I remember All Souls UU Church in Indianapolis, under The Rev. Paul Beattie, was very pro-Viet Nam. Yet, the UUA certainly wasn't.

    As far as my statement on abortion, I did not intend to equate the two.

    I left out part of my thought. I meant to say those who support or oppose abortion are not jailed for their beliefs, they are jailed for practicing that belief via protests that turn violent and destructive, or something like that.

    It's been a long, long day, and I am plowing through a 967-page book on Home Health Care Administration.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    You present some very cogent and interesting thoughts.

    Your statement about "avoidance" reminds me of the three approaches to conflict: approach-approach, approach-avoidance, and avoidance-avoidance.

    I think with the same-sex issue, one that has caused much conflict within the Christian community, most of us have chosen either the first or last method.

    I think, sooner or later, the majority will take the approach-avoidance method.
     
  12. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    I think it more, believe it or not, what we would call a "Liberal" belief in the state having a compelling interest in a societal good to override individual liberty.
     
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Interesting question. So long as the State does not recognize same sex marriage, a minister who solemnizes such a marriage performs a strictly religious rite; there's no legal problem.

    However, performing a marriage where the couple CAN lawfully wed without the appropriate State license is usually a minor crime.

    Now, if there is NO doubt that same sex marriage is a legal nullity, the minister can proceed BUT if there is a legal doubt, if the State constitution DOES require the State to recognize same sex marriages, then the minister could be committing a crime by conducting the ceremony without a license!

    Now, there's little chance of any minster being charged, unless the prosecutor is a religious fundamentalist...as so many of them seem to be...
     
  14. madcow

    madcow New Member

    Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Do you believe that rights are granted to individuals or to a person's behavior? What in the federal constition or state constutions, allows for the establishment and protection of rights is based upon a pesons behavior? Of course you might say that homosexuality is a genetic trait. I would then ask at what point does one become homosexual? I would assert that it is the point at which one participates in a homosexual act. Up until that point, one would be presumed to be heterosexual, in my opinion.

    A right based on a persons race or creed for example is distinctly different than the establishing a new right based on one's behavior. The government does have duty, IMHO to establish policy regarding marriage in order to protect women, provide for children and civilize men.
     
  15. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    What precisely were these two UU clergywomen doing?

    Performing "civil" marriages? What does that mean? What legal force does it have, if any?

    I'll speculate that New York law in effect empowers clergy to act as deputy county clerks, permitting them to issue marriage certificates, making a second visit to the county courthouse unnecessary.

    If that's so, what penalties exist for a minor county functionary willfully deciding to ignore state law?

    Can a clergywoman simultaneously claim secular powers under the civil law and immunity from prosecution under the separation clause?

    More generally, what potential separation-clause issues are involved with the rights of clergy to perform marriages, when marriage is simultaneously a religious and a civil state?
     
  16. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Your definition of homosexuality reminds me of the "one drop rule" that was used to enforce segregation. (Those with "one drop" of "black blood" were considered black.)

    Fortunately, it doesn't matter what your definition of homsexuality is since there is no ban on homosexual marriage. A gay man is legally allowed to wed. It's just that he can only wed a woman.

    Conversely, if two same-sex heterosexuals wanted to marry, even though they had never had homosexual sex and did not intend to, this would still be illegal.

    It's not about behaivor, it's about gender.
     
  17. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle



    There is certainly an enormous amount of congregational autonomy. However, the bylaws of the UUA state:

    "Section C-2.3. Non-discrimination. The Association declares and affirms its special responsibility, and that of its member congregations and organizations, to promote the full participation of persons in all of its and their activities and in the full range of human endeavor without regard to race, color, sex, disability, affectional or sexual orientation, age, or national origin and without requiring adherence to any particular interpretation of religion or to any particular religious belief or creed."

    I don't see how a congregation that opposed same-sex marriage could claim that it was promoting "the full participation of persons...in the full range of human endeavors without regard to ...sexual orientation."
     
  18. Dan East

    Dan East New Member

    protect women..., civilize men

    Madcow, am I ever glad men are still in charge of government! I wonder what laws YOU would like to see enacted to "civilize" me? Shame on you for portraying women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual ogres.

    BTW, I am all for gay marriage. I believe homosexuals in our society may have an easier time of things, should the marriage dissolve and children be involved. Currently, fathers in most jurisdictions can look forward to not having access to their own children, to being considered little more than walking wallets, and in many cases, having to defend themselves from unwarranted charges of sexual abuse, violence and so forth. Gay unions just may be accorded true equality before the courts, in similar situations, than the current situation facing many men.

    I wonder how being removed from his children's lives leads to men becoming more "civilized"? Marriage today is really not such a good proposition for hetero men, IMHO. Perhaps opening the floor to gay marriage will breath new life into the institution.

    Regards,

    Dan
     
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Jeff,

    Section C-2.4 of Article 11 says,

    "Nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the individual freedom of belief which is inherent in the Universalist and Unitarian heritages or to conflict with any statement of purpose, covenant, or bond of union used by any member society unless such is used a a creedal test."

    And from the "Principles and Purposes,"

    "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;..."

    Also, you refer to the UUA as a denomination. The UUA is an association of independent congregations. They do not refer to themselves a a denomination.



     
  20. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same-sex marriage: An interesting new religious wrinkle

    Fine. I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I just don't see what the point is of calling yourself a UU congregation when you oppose the fundamental aspects of what Unitarian Universalism is all about (except for democracy and autonomy, of course.)

    I did? If so, I was obviously mistaken, but I don't think I did.
     

Share This Page