[Previous entry: "Imposition of a new standard of "family""] [Next entry: "Michael Moore: font of wisdom"]
06/26/2004: "Ridiculous arguments on Federal Marriage Amendment"
A collection of religious leaders, orchestrated by church-state separation extremist Barry Lynn, recently wrote to members of Congress expressing their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would limit civil marriage to one man and one woman. Here's their effort in full:
As leaders representing many of the diverse perspectives on religion in our nation, we are writing to urge you to oppose passage of H. J. Res. 56/S. J. Res. 26, the "Federal Marriage Amendment." Although we have differing opinions on rights for same-sex couples, we believe the Federal Marriage Amendment reflects a fundamental disregard for individual civil rights and ignores differences among our nation’s many religious traditions. It should be rejected.
Perusal of the list of signatories indicates that, in fact, they are almost all essentially in lockstep on gay rights. The differences to which they allude are largely the differences they represent within their own religious traditions (Sikhism being a possible exception).
Few decisions by religious bodies are more central than who can take part in important religious rituals or services, including marriage. Fortunately, the Constitution bars any court or legislature from requiring any religious institution or person to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone. Indeed, the Constitution protects houses of worship in their freedom to limit marriages on whatever theological grounds they choose. The First Amendment already protects religious organizations from governmental interference in such matters, and constitutional definitions of marriage therefore are unnecessary.
The totalitarian demand of gay activists for not just tolerance but acceptance aside, it is probably true that religious bodies in the US won't be forced to conduct gay marriages, regardless of whether the FMA is passed or not. But this is leading up to a red herring of monumental proportions.
Regardless of judicial and legislative decisions defining the legal rights of gay couples, religious marriage will justly remain the prerogative of individual faith traditions in accordance with their doctrinal beliefs. And this is as it should be. It is not the task of our government and elected representatives to enshrine in our laws the religious point of view of any one faith. Rather, our government should dedicate itself to protecting the rights of all citizens and all faiths.
See it coming yet?
For over two hundred years, the Constitution has had no provision on marriage, the matter being left to the states and the teachings of various religious groups. Our nation’s founders adopted the First Amendment precisely because they foresaw the dangers posed by allowing government to have control over religious decisions. The religious freedom protected by the First Amendment has allowed religious practice and pluralism to flourish. Respecting the rights of those in the faith community who deem sacred text consistent with the blessing of same-sex relationships protects and ensures that freedom.
GOTCHA! The claim here is that if one religious belief (heterosexual marriage only) is protected, then the other (same-sex marriage is ok) must be as well. This is the red herring. The FMA has nothing to do with what religious bodies do. If Gene Robinson wants to pronounce an episcopal blessing on the conjugal union of three men and an Irish setter, he's welcome to do so, FMA or no FMA. The amendment has to do with civil marriage, what the state will recognize and extend benefits to.
We are particularly concerned that this proposal to amend the Constitution would, for the first time, restrict the civil rights of millions of Americans. That concern alone merits rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment. We strongly believe that Congress must continue to protect the nation’s fundamental religious freedoms and continue to protect our nation’s bedrock principle of respecting religious pluralism. Congress should soundly reject any attempt to enshrine into the Constitution a particular religious viewpoint on a matter of such fundamental religious importance.
This is the most asinine thing in the letter. Gay marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is a human right, but that doesn't mean absolutely any form of it must therefore be recognized as such. The logic here of this sentence means that all prohibitions on polygamous marriage, incestous marriage, or communitarian marriage would by definition be swept away. If the signatories aren't willing to grant the legitimacy of a marriage between a father and daughter, or between three men and one woman, or between four women and three men, or between two women and their son by artifical insemination (make up your own variation), then they grant the state and society's right to limit marriage by gender, number, and consaguinuity. Ergo, gay marriage is not a civil right.
This also suggests that the idea of marriage as one man, one woman is some kind of peculiar and exclusively religious idea. In fact, this view of marriage has been universal in the US (19th century Mormonism excepted, which brings us back to my previous argument) until a few years ago. Muslims have never demanded the legalization of polygamy, secularists didn't claim that marriage was of infinite variety, until gay activists conceived of same-sex marriage as a way of furthering their agenda of public acceptance for their lifestyle.That hardly makes the idea a "particular religious viewpoint."
One other point needs to be made about this letter. According to Americans United for Separation of Church and States, "over two dozen major denominations and other religious groups" signed on to their effort. Really? The signatories included:
*Seven activist organizations (Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Christians for Justice Action, Disciples Justice Action Network, National Conference for Community and Justice, Protestant Justice Action, and The Interfaith Alliance) accountable to virtually no one.
*Five denominational "justice ministry" offices that may or may not speak for anyone other than themselves (American Friends Service Committee, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs (ELCA), Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office, and United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries).
*Three Sikh organizations of unknown influence, standing, or authority within the Sikh community (Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, National Sikh Center, Sikh Council on Religion and Education–if anyone who can enlighten me on these, please do).
*Five Jewish organizations, none of which represent either Conservative or Orthodox Judaism (Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform Judaism], Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, National Council of Jewish Women, Union for Reform Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism).
*A "Catholic order" (Loretto Women's Network) that is actually the political arm of an order, and which actively works against official Catholic positions on abortion, homosexuality, etc.
*A quasi-denomination (Alliance of Baptists) of 118 churches and indeterminate membership.
*Four actual denominations (Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Episcopal Church, USA, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations), two of which are in steep decline, two of which can hardly be classified as "major."
They would no doubt claim to speak for "tens of millions of religious people."
