Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[lilithu]

Yes, people have finally started answering this question. After this long. :biglaugh: So really this thread isn't about equality, but about similarity.

It's about EQUALITY. Your conception of "equality" is warped. No one thinks that things must come from the exact same source to be equal. By your "logic" the only way for you and I to receive equal amounts of cake is for us to eat the same piece.

 

[MaddLlama]

Yes, people have finally started answering this question. After this long. :biglaugh: So really this thread isn't about equality, but about similarity.

I think you haven't been reading my posts.

If you had actually been paying attention, your question was answered on the first page. Really. Go check if you don't believe me. Really, it's not very fair to selectively read posts and then complain that nobody answered your question.

Wait, now, I demonstrated using historical examples the exact opposite!

Yes, and several people explained to you that the example you provided was irrelevant, and not dealing with the issue at hand at all. Which is why, if you'll remember, you dropped it. Do you have other "historical" examples that might prove my previous post on women's and black rights wrong?

 

[lilithu]

ML et al, it took some digging for me to find the post to which yall were referring. Good post!

When civil rights for Africa Americans was being considered, did the church argue against it just like they're doing today with the gay community? Yes, yes they did. Many staunch religious conservatives at the time were vehemently against the desegregation of schools. They believed that the subjugation of black people to white people was part of God's design, and that was more important than racial equality. Sound familiar? But, the religious lost that battle and there was no more segregation between the races in public places. Yet, the church was able to carry on, and their ability to practice their religion was not hindered. And, to my knowledge, no church was ever forced by the government through the passage of laws to accept black members or perform interracial marriages when they didn't want to. The church simply revised its policy over time and realized that racist policies were unnecessary. However, the point is that in giving them civil rights at the opposition to the religious conservatives still did not infringe on the Christian ability to be a Christian.

Regarding the sentence in bold, there is one possible example that I can think of where the fight for racial equality might have infringed upon a particular denomination's religious liberty. It did not have to do with desegregation in public places, nor the passage of new laws. Speaking of which, I would like to go back to luna's question from a while back:

Do you think that churches that refuse to perform gay marriages should be tax exempt?

It is widely believed that a denomination changed its policy regarding allowing blacks into their priesthood (1978) due to fear of losing their tax exempt status with the IRS. The reason why it's believed outside the church is because the church changed its policy not too long after Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for this reason, and one of the leaders of the church is on record saying that he had represented his church when they had been in a similar position. However, there is no hard evidence that the IRS ever officially made such a threat to the church, and its leadership claims that it was led to the decision to allow blacks into their priesthood due to their own internal religious discernment. If one believes the church, there was no infringement on their religious liberty. But it sorta begs the question.

 

[MaddLlama]

I couldn't find any specific cases, but I also didn't look too hard (pressed for time and all that). But if you know of one feel free to throw it out there, I think for this discussion it's important to know.

 

[lilithu]

I couldn't find any specific cases, but I also didn't look too hard (pressed for time and all that). But if you know of one feel free to throw it out there, I think for this discussion it's important to know.

The reason why I didn't name the particular denomination is because I don't want the discussion to be about whether or not this particular denomination is racist. Especially given that the denomination itself says that they did not change their policies due to pressure from the IRS, it is an unproven case. Can't we just take this as a hypothetical?

Would it be ok for churches to lose their tax-exempt status based on their views on race, sexual orientation, or anything like that?

Methinks that gnomon and standing_alone have already said no. My first inclination is to say no as well. I have never thought, for example, that the Catholic Church should lose its tax exempt status despite its continuing to make women second-class citizens. Tho I have to admit, when I first heard the story, the idea of a church losing its tax exempt status due to racial discrimination did not bother me. That seems inconsistent to me now.

 

[MaddLlama]

The reason why I didn't name the particular denomination is because I don't want the discussion to be about whether or not this particular denomination is racist. Especially given that the denomination itself says that they did not change their policies due to pressure from the IRS, it is an unproven case. Can't we just take this as a hypothetical?

Ok

Would it be ok for churches to lose their tax-exempt status based on their views on race, sexual orientation, or anything like that

Methinks that gnomon and standing_alone have already said no. My first inclination is to say no as well. I have never thought, for example, that the Catholic Church should lose its tax exempt status despite its continuing to make women second-class citizens. Tho I have to admit, when I first heard the story, the idea of a church losing its tax exempt status due to racial discrimination did not bother me. That seems inconsistent to me now.

My first reaction is to say no also. However I do think there's a more subtle issue to this, and that's in the interpretation of scripture. The church doesn't seem to interpret those same passages they used against black rights and interracial marriage anymore. So, was the interpretation and application wrong to begin with, or is the issue just ignored because of government pressure? I don't know the answer, but it's something to think about.

 

[Green Gaia]

Can you point out which post number you mentioned that in earlier?

Yes, I could. Or you can go back and read what was on the first page.

Yes, people have finally started answering this question. After this long. :biglaugh:

You just acknowledged in your previous post that this was answered on the first page:

]I missed it because it was on the first page...

So which is it? Who's fault is it you didn't read the first page of the debate?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The fight for equal marriage is not a fight for religious marriage, but civil marriage.

So would not the best solution be to seperate church and state and abolish the marriage license?

Marriage would be something spiritual and have no legal rights.

Civil relationships would be granted by the state and have all the legal rights.

It may sound stupid to some folks, but the word marriage is what gets the religious right all stirred up.

 

[Green Gaia]

So would not the best solution be to seperate church and state and abolish the marriage license?

Theoretically, yes it would be. Unfortunately, suggest that to most folks and no matter what their opinions on same gender marriage is (against or pro), you'll find resistance to "giving up their legal marriage," which I can understand. Therefore, it doesn't make that approach very practical or worthwhile to pursue at this point.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Theoretically, yes it would be. Unfortunately, suggest that to most folks and no matter what their opinions on same gender marriage is (against or pro), you'll find resistance to "giving up their legal marriage," which I can understand. Therefore, it doesn't make that approach very practical or worthwhile to pursue at this point.

Grandfather all existing marriages and make it about future relationships. Give things a year to go into effect.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Only if you define rights positively, which I think is always wrong. Rights are always negative. After all, a gay person could just go to a different place, a place that wasn't biased. Nobody has a right to be unconditionally liked, after all.

It's not about having the right to be liked (it's about having the right to not be shut out from economic opportunity on the basis of color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.), but we'll have to continue discussing this very interesting topic in another thread.

Wait, now, I demonstrated using historical examples the exact opposite!

"The exact opposite" would have been the government forcing priests to perform the marriage ceremony for inter-racial couples or Jews....no such examples exist in the US.

The point isn't so much how many tax breaks churches get, it's the fact that they actually have to apply for tax breaks. The tax "break" (ie, not being taxed at all because it diminishes church/state seperation) ought to be the default, but since it's not, I see that the seperation is diminishing and could continue diminishing.

A valid concern - agree to disagree - can talk more about it in another thread.

Yes, people have finally started answering this question. After this long. :biglaugh: So really this thread isn't about equality, but about similarity.

It is about equality under the law.

 

[Green Gaia]

Grandfather all existing marriages and make it about future relationships. Give things a year to go into effect.

Nope. "I want my son or daughter to have a legal marriage as God ordained it, not a civil union," - or some similar argument.

I appreciate the way you're thinking, Rick. I entertained that ideal for a while too. Until I started to talking to people and soon realized that even people I know to be very pro-same gender marriage would have problems with going the route you're suggesting. Marriage, religious and/or secular is too entrenched in our society. Marriage is how religious and secular couples declare and show their love and commitment to each other.

The mountain is already high, and I don't think we should do anything to make it any higher. I fear that if we started pushing abolishing legal marriage there would be a great backlash against gblt equal rights in general. We don't want to overhaul the system, we just want to join it.

 

[Mathematician]

As soon as someone is forced into a homosexual marriage, I'll question if religious liberty has been hindered. I don't have to comply to anyone's religious will, and I expect the same treatment for my homosexual brothers and sisters.

 

[lilithu]

I appreciate the way you're thinking, Rick. I entertained that ideal for a while too. Until I started to talking to people and soon realized that even people I know to be very pro-same gender marriage would have problems with going the route you're suggesting. Marriage, religious and/or secular is too entrenched in our society. Marriage is how religious and secular couples declare and show their love and commitment to each other.

The mountain is already high, and I don't think we should do anything to make it any higher. I fear that if we started pushing abolishing legal marriage there would be a great backlash against gblt equal rights in general. We don't want to overhaul the system, we just want to join it.

That's why I think that the onus is on the religious groups who want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" to work on this issue. It is in their best interest to remove marriage from the secular realm so they should be working to do so. I agree with you that it would be unreasonable to expect the BGLT communities to take on this additional challenge. My only hope is that *if* the conservative religious communities actually made some headway into going this route that the BGLT communities would not oppose it.

 

[Luke_17:2]

I'm against gay marriage, but not against civil unions between gays. I have gay relatives with whom I'm close, but my traditionalists, religious, and social ideals are not so easily swayed. Personally, as long as they don't call it marriage, and as long as the terms husband and wife stay on the hetro side; they can do whatever they want.

I said it; don't kill me

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm against gay marriage, but not against civil unions between gays. I have gay relatives with whom I'm close, but my traditionalists, religious, and social ideals are not so easily swayed. Personally, as long as they don't call it marriage, and as long as the terms husband and wife stay on the hetro side; they can do whatever they want.

I said it; don't kill me

Well that's your opinion. I certainly don't agree with you, but that's not what this debate is about. I see you voted that civil equality for gays must be restricted to preserve religious liberty. Can you tell me in what ways equality for gblt people would infringe upon religious liberty?

 

[Green Gaia]

That's why I think that the onus is on the religious groups who want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" to work on this issue. It is in their best interest to remove marriage from the secular realm so they should be working to do so. I agree with you that it would be unreasonable to expect the BGLT communities to take on this additional challenge. My only hope is that *if* the conservative religious communities actually made some headway into going this route that the BGLT communities would not oppose it.

I don't know if it would be opposed or not, I hope not too, especially if the suggestion comes from the other side. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[MaddLlama]

So would not the best solution be to seperate church and state and abolish the marriage license?

Marriage would be something spiritual and have no legal rights.

Civil relationships would be granted by the state and have all the legal rights.

It may sound stupid to some folks, but the word marriage is what gets the religious right all stirred up.

You know what, I do think that's a stupid idea. I see absolutely no reason to abolish and rebuild an entire system just because a number of people are too dense and/or stupid to understand that a word can have more than one meaning. Do you believe all words should have one and only one meaning and usage?

Do you also think we should mandate that only members of certain religions should be allowed to use the word "God" to refer to their religions higher power?

Really, if you're going to make such a huge fuss over the fact that you don't have a monopoly on a word, then that's an incredibly immature argument. Why do you care whether or not someone gets to use the word?

 

[lilithu]

I'm against gay marriage, but not against civil unions between gays.

Then you had better work to remove marriage from the civil arena and promote civil unions for everyone. Otherwise, you are going to see gay marriages. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. There will be full equality. Justice demands it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Then you had better work to remove marriage from the civil arena and promote civil unions for everyone. Otherwise, you are going to see gay marriages. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. There will be full equality. Justice demands it.

The question is when? I would like to see this in my life time. I am getting old.

Just because my religion does not condone gay behavior does not mean as an American, I don't believe everyone should have equal rights.

This is a perfect example why there is a need for separation of church and state.

The words marriage and license is the perfect example of a violation of the separation of church and state.