Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Here we go again

Another commentary in the Tracy Press argues that allowing same-sex marriage would have been an assault on religious freedom.

File Mrs. Jan Haws' Her Voice under "Point, Completely Missed."

I fail to see how the state granting secular same-sex marriage threatens religion. Under California law before Proposition 8 was passed, churches were not forced to marry same-sex couples, and churches’ definition of marriage would hardly have been changed by the failure of Proposition 8.

If it had failed, the only definition that would have changed is in regards to the definition of "marriage" in the secular state government. In the USA, that is not the same as religion.

All that would have happened is that two people who love each other — in a sometimes cruel world that seems to stack the deck against love and happiness of any kind — would be able to marry regardless of the equipment between their legs.

It is ironic that Mrs. Haws voted Yes on Proposition 8 because she wants to protect freedom of religion, when that very vote breached the separation between church and state. In essense, Mrs. Haws is saying that there must be religious freedom — as long as people are only free to obey the laws of Mrs. Haws' religion.

It is this faction of religious believers imposing their will on same-sex couples, not the other way around.

Besides, the only way to justify the ban on same-sex marriage is to rely on religious precepts, precepts that are not even held by all members of the same religion. This is shaky ground for a Constitutional amendment.

The approval of Proposition 8 encroached on religious freedom, setting the precedent that it’s perfectly OK to start establishing a theocracy if a bare majority supports it.

Freedom of religion means that everyone’s religion is treated equally by the state, and that is best done out of arm’s reach so that the state cannot become an arm of religion and so that religion does not become a tool of the state.

Religious freedom is a very, very, very good thing. But only when it's truly religious freedom.

2 comments:

Mike McLellan, D. Min. said...

Sorry Jon:
Your blogg makes too much sense. Those who see the passage of Prop. 8 as a religious victory have little idea of either religious freedom or victory. How do you do a victory dance when you have hurt so many people? And, how is religion served by Prop. 8 unless you go back to punishing adultery by death? (Biblical no?) Marriage is, in the Bible, the union of a man and as many women as he could afford. It is all so confusing when you take only part of the Bible literally. Except, however, the fact that we are to love one.

Anonymous said...

There was no religion involved. Nowhere in the proposition did it state any religious doctrine or affiliations.

It is about VALUE SYSTEMS and the WILL of the peole to not allow 4 black robed individuals in the bench to mandate what our VALUE SYSTEM should be.

The peole have spoken...again and again and again.