Respect for Marriage Act


The Folk Prophet
 Share

Recommended Posts

@MarginOfError I'm just exploring what you're thinking, not trying to be cryptic, btw. Let me ask you another question. Let's say we replaced your question with another as a thought exercise (the slavery subject already in play in the discussion):

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that slavery is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that slavery is moral.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

 

 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What teeth do you believe the Constitution has?

I find "teeth" to be an odd choice of words. It makes it sound like some kind of a trap. Which I suppose it could be understood to be in the sense that it is intended to restrain the reach of government. But more importantly, it enables citizens to enact, as President Lincoln would describe it, at government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@MarginOfError I'm just exploring what you're thinking, not trying to be cryptic, btw. Let me ask you another question. Let's say we replaced your question with another as a thought exercise (subject already in play in the discussion):

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that slavery is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that slaver is moral.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

I offer you the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments.

 

EDIT: I'll also add to that list the Eighteenth and Twenty-First amendments.

As well as the Twentieth amendment. And the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I find "teeth" to be an odd choice of words. It makes it sound like some kind of a trap. Which I suppose it could be understood to be in the sense that it is intended to restrain the reach of government. But more importantly, it enables citizens to enact, as President Lincoln would describe it, at government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I offer you the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments. 

Hmm. Maybe you're not following my two trains of thought here (which...I was, self-admittedly, cryptic).

The constitution is a piece of paper. It is adequate to nothing. It has no teeth of itself. Only men, and their will, have the teeth to enforce or deny it. For example, there are a few things that I believe are not constitutional that occur (some even viewed as legal). No one counters them by force of law. And hence, the constitution cannot enforce itself. So, to my thinking, speaking of the Constitution as if it's a power is strange. It's not magic. It's not God. It's just words on paper. It's agreed upon ideas. Are agreed upon ideas sufficient to govern people who disagree on those ideas? Of course not. One belief can overwhelm and overpower the other, by force, but doing so doesn't have to adhere to words on a piece of paper.

The way I'm thinking of it in terms of the slavery example speaks to my view of the question more directly though. The constitution, and its amendments, were, very clearly, not adequate. I offer you The Civil War.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If we made the presupposition you suggest, then we must recognize mindset in which Madison made the statement.

Recognizing gay marriage as a "moral ideal" would have been so far beyond the pale that he would think the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that we were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling us back from such corruption.

Maybe Jefferson was right. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. Maybe you're not following my two trains of thought here (which...I was, self-admittedly, cryptic).

The constitution is a piece of paper. It is adequate to nothing. It has no teeth of itself. Only men, and their will, have the teeth to enforce or deny it. For example, there are a few things that I believe are not constitutional that occur (some even viewed as legal). No one counters them by force of law. And hence, the constitution cannot enforce itself. So, to my thinking, speaking of the Constitution as if it's a power is strange. It's not magic. It's not God. It's just words on paper. It's agreed upon ideas. Are agreed upon ideas sufficient to govern people who disagree on those ideas? Of course not. One belief can overwhelm and overpower the other, by force, but doing so doesn't have to adhere to words on a piece of paper.

The way I'm thinking of it in terms of the slavery example speaks to my view of the question more directly though. The constitution, and its amendments, were, very clearly, not adequate. I offer you The Civil War.

Hey, I think you're starting to get it! When parties of disparate beliefs refuse to compromise on civic/governmental affairs, violence tends to follow.

Now read the Church's statement again: "appropriate religious freedoms" AND "rights of LGBTQ brothers and sisters." 

This is the Church saying we agree on the ideals in the Constitution, and so "this approach is the way forward."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Hey, I think you're starting to get it! When parties of disparate beliefs refuse to compromise on civic/governmental affairs, violence tends to follow.

Now read the Church's statement again: "appropriate religious freedoms" AND "rights of LGBTQ brothers and sisters." 

This is the Church saying we agree on the ideals in the Constitution, and so "this approach is the way forward."

I believe you must be either confusing my views with someone else's or doing some reading between-the-lines of the things I've said. I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of your reply here. I don't disagree with it (other than the "starting to get it" part). I don't believe I said we should be refusing to compromise. In point of fact I said that we should compromise in order to do our best, despite the fact that the compromises don't seem to work. So I'm not sure what you're on about. You sure didn't address anything I actually wrote in the post you replied to. Are you actually interested in discussing the Constitution and it's sufficiency or lack thereof to guide governance?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

If your brother in law is not practicing homosexuality then he is not gay.  He likely has a same sex attraction that he controls and he lives his life like a saint if he is worthy to get a temple recommend.

Not to get too far into what's ultimately a semantic issue, but:  Sober alcoholics are still alcoholics.  Celibate gay people are still gay.  

Every hour that goes by, another thousand Mormons stop associating the word 'gay' with a mental illness or a sin, because they come to understand the difference between having a leaning/urge/inclination/orientation, and acting on said leaning/urge/inclination/orientation.

I mean, we basically believe the same thing, but I'm more in line with current church terminology and thought on the matter.

Like when the Relief Society General Presidency introduced a queer sister at last year's women's conference.  She is a queer saint.  She's not a sufferer or same sex attraction who controls her life and lives her life like a saint if she's worthy to get a temple recommend.  

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Celibate gay people are still gay.  

This cannot be true, for homosexuals have agreed in affirming that life itself simply is not worth living if homosexuals cannot exercise their passions.

To be slightly more serious, I am bothered no end by the blatant dishonesty displayed (primarily by the Left, but truth be told, by people on both sides) in adhering closely and with anal retentive insistence on the picky specific definition of words, until that definition doesn't support their view--at which point they move the goalposts and then remark to their opponents, "My, aren't you anal retentive in your insistence?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I would caution against assigning identity labels to people.  From the Church's Gospel Topics section on Same Sex Attraction

And in the same topic under the section for individuals:

 

MOE, you know I love ya; but I would respectfully suggest that I find this a bit selective.  The context surrounding your second quotation is extremely suspicious of labels.  Specifically, the section of the webpage entitled "Identity and Labels" reads in full as follows:

We should exercise care in how we label ourselves. Labels should be used thoughtfully and with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Labels can affect how we think about ourselves and how others treat us and may expand or limit our ability to follow God’s plan for our happiness. Labels may impact our goals, sense of identity, and the people we call friends. If labels get in the way of our eternal progress, we can choose to change them. Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained in a 2006 interview:


“I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. … We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.


“The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path” (Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” 2006).


If one experiences same-sex attraction, he or she can choose whether to use a sexual identity label. Identifying oneself as gay or lesbian is not against Church policy or doctrine; however, it may have undesired consequences in the way one is treated. No true follower of Christ is justified in withholding love because you decide to identify in this way.


President Russell M. Nelson reminded us: “One day you will be asked if you took upon yourself the name of Christ and if you were faithful to that covenant” (“Identity, Priority, and Blessings,” Ensign, Aug. 2001, 10).


As Paul expressed it: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27–28).


One day, at the end of this short mortal journey, we will return to the presence of our Heavenly Parents. One day, all other labels will be swallowed up in our eternal identity as children of God.

In context, your quotation that "[one] can choose whether to use a sexual identity label" is more along the lines of a rhetorical "you can choose whether to smoke crystal meth", not a permissive "go ahead and take my car on your date tonight, and everything will be fine!".  In this case:  yes, people have their agency--but one course of action is wise, and the other is not.  One course of action is approved by God; the other--at least as a general proposition--He has consistently warned against. 

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts, also the work of John Adams. I think most people here would agree that the Sedition Act in particular was unconstitutional and tyrannical.

Additionally, I would caution against treating the words of the Founders as absolute and infallible. Thomas Jefferson believed that debts and laws (including the Constitution) should be given a 19-year expiration date, upon which debts would be erased and the Constitution would be re-written, every 19 years. He believed that extending laws and debts any further than that would pass the debts and laws of one generation onto the next, something he considered a form of tyranny.

Source

Just as a bit of historical geekery--I think we forget just how tenuous the United States' position was during the Napoleonic Wars.  Adams reluctantly agreed to these as war measures; he knew they were deeply problematic.  I'd highly recommend McCullough's biography of Adams for more on the issue.  He had his flaws, to be sure; but Adams was no tyrant.  

I'll offer some thoughts on Jefferson, in my response to MOE below.    

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This line of argument, to me, betrays the very premise of the Constitution to begin with.  The Constitution as we know it was written because the Articles of Confederation were too rigid and destined to fail. The Constitution incorporates massive compromises that, had they not been made, likely would have prevented any form of governance between the disparate parties.

Furthermore, I would argue that upholding the right own and sell human beings as property as a "moral ideal" ought to have been so far beyond the pale that we could assume the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that they were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling them back from such corruption.

Yet, here we are.

Well, yes--the Constitution had to be adapted in a form that everyone would agree with; and so on topics where not everyone agreed, the Constitution said as little as possible.

This sort of ties back in to Godless’s point on Jefferson:  The filthy little corollary of Jefferson's idea that governments should reform every couple of decades, was that he didn't see any problem with armed insurrections and even wholesale, massively bloody revolutions with the same degree of frequency.  So far as I am aware, Jefferson was more or less a cheerleader of Robespierre's Reign of Terror and only much later was more-or-less shamed into acknowledging its "excesses"--before then, I believe he went on-record saying that a revolution that left only one male and one female alive to repopulate a country was preferable to "tyranny".

At any rate, the practical lesson here seems to be that if we don't respect the text of the US Constitution because we see it as an extraordinary document borne of the extraordinary wisdom of an extraordinary group, we should at least respect it because any attempt to use atextual or extratextual interpretations of constitutional law to force-fit novel ideas onto large swaths of the populace increases the probability of an armed insurrection.  To put it bluntly--if one agrees with Jefferson, then one doesn't get to express moral outrage over the January 6 brouhaha/ mob/ "insurrection".   And a significant key to the Constitution's longevity has been its relatively-universally-acknowledged silence, vagueness, or ambiguity on the major political controversies of any particular moment in American history.

As for Adams and Madison's comments about a moral populace:  When they spoke of the need for a degree of civic "virtue" or "morality" in order for the Constitution to function--I suspect they were defining those terms much more broadly than simply sexual probity (either homosexual or heterosexual).  Certainly, sexual profligacy and (in those days before birth control) unwed parenthood/ illegitimacy/ bastardy could be deeply socially problematic in and of itself.  But I suspect that Adams and Madison were speaking of deeper core values--concepts like the individual divinely-decreed worth of each human, respect for the rights of others as well as ourselves, reason and rationalism, tolerance, respect for rule-of-law, self-discipline, an ability to take the long view, and a willingness to deny one's baser appetites and even to voluntarily subordinate one's self-interest to a greater good.  My understanding is that Adams (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Madison) saw these as part-and-parcel of a fundamental Judeo-Christian moral framework; though certainly there's been a long and lively debate about whether these can sustainably exist outside of such a framework.

In that sense:  While I agree that American civics is in deep trouble and that a lot of it has to do with the moral decay that Adams and Madison warned about, I think that the LGBTQ movement (and indeed, the sexual revolution as a whole) is a symptom, not the cause, of that moral decay.  I think the same of Trumpism, by the way.  "Civic virtue" as (I would argue) most of the framers understood it, seems incompatible with most of the core arguments embraced by adherents of either faction.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I would suggest it is both.

I could get behind that.  It's sort of a downward spiral.  

(Incidentally, I've always thought that the "pride cycle" could be better described as a "pride toilet bowl".  But I digress . . .)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I could get behind that.  It's sort of a downward spiral.  

(Incidentally, I've always thought that the "pride cycle" could be better described as a "pride toilet bowl".  But I digress . . .)

Semi-related idea: There's this running commentary in conservative circles that "politics is downstream of culture." (Andrew Breitbart) While that is true, I think it needs to be acknowledged that culture is also downstream of politics and the same toilet-bowl kind of way.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...deleted...

Ever since the site changed I keep accidentally quoting myself instead of editing myself. Grr.

Me too.  An advantage of being a mod is the ability to instantly hide my own duplicates.  😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...deleted...

Ever since the site changed I keep accidentally quoting myself instead of editing myself. Grr.

 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Me too.  An advantage of being a mod is the ability to instantly hide my own duplicates.  😎

 

I hide duplicates all the time.  I think I'll leave this one up though.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Even if we presuppose agreement with Madison's statement ("Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."), what do you propose to do when religions disagree on points of faith?

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is of equal morality to heterosexual marriage.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

That quote was from Adams but Madison also made very similar comments. I don't think Adams was speaking of just any religion nor of any specific religious belief. Rather I think he had in mind a people who lived according to the Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. A person could be an atheist or of most any religious persuasion and still practice this idea of morality.

In another post you referenced slavery as being a very immoral stain on our country's past and you are exactly right, which makes my point. That serious departure from morality very nearly rent this country asunder and we paid a heavy price for it.

A second point I would make is that much that is unconstitutional has crept into our government. I believe this comes as a direct result of the immorality of our society and that relationship will only grow stronger. And when I say immorality I'm specifically speaking sexually but of general right and wrong.

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe you must be either confusing my views with someone else's or doing some reading between-the-lines of the things I've said. I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of your reply here. I don't disagree with it (other than the "starting to get it" part). I don't believe I said we should be refusing to compromise. In point of fact I said that we should compromise in order to do our best, despite the fact that the compromises don't seem to work. So I'm not sure what you're on about. You sure didn't address anything I actually wrote in the post you replied to. Are you actually interested in discussing the Constitution and it's sufficiency or lack thereof to guide governance?

The post to which I was responding was a condescending lecture about how a piece of paper doesn't actually have teeth and therefore can't actually bite people (enforce itself). I wasn't sure if you were trying to imply that I was stupid or if I you were just looking for cheap debate points. Either way, I chose to be charitable and focus my response on the substance of the discussion. Namely, that the Constitution has proven itself to be up to the task of governing people in this country when they mutually agree to be bound by it. 

If it would be more enjoyable for you, I'd be happy to return to anthropomorphizing paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

MOE, you know I love ya; but I would respectfully suggest that I find this a bit selective.  The context surrounding your second quotation is extremely suspicious of labels.  [redacted for brevity]

 

I'm not going to engage in a debate about the ability of identity labels to "expand or limit our ability to follow God’s plan for our happiness." I find nothing controversial in that statement. 

My comment was cautioning against foisting labels upon other people (especially strangers). And the quotes I chose demonstrated the Church modeling the behavior of not foisting labels. Specifically, the Church's explanation was that they use the term "same sex attraction" as an umbrella term to be inclusive of multiple identity labels, rather than tell an individual what label is appropriate to use. We would do well to follow their example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, laronius said:

That quote was from Adams but Madison also made very similar comments. I don't think Adams was speaking of just any religion nor of any specific religious belief. Rather I think he had in mind a people who lived according to the Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. A person could be an atheist or of most any religious persuasion and still practice this idea of morality.

In another post you referenced slavery as being a very immoral stain on our country's past and you are exactly right, which makes my point. That serious departure from morality very nearly rent this country asunder and we paid a heavy price for it.

A second point I would make is that much that is unconstitutional has crept into our government. I believe this comes as a direct result of the immorality of our society and that relationship will only grow stronger. And when I say immorality I'm specifically speaking sexually but of general right and wrong.

My apologies on the Adams-Madison mix up. Multi tasking doesn't work well for me anymore.

I will go back to the questions of Catholics and Episcopalians, however. I would find it hard to take seriously a claim that Episcopalians do not live according to Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. While the former is opposed to gay marriage and the latter is not, there is still far more those two religions share than separate them. I don't see how their disagreement on such a small subset of principles renders constitutional government ineffectual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This line of argument, to me, betrays the very premise of the Constitution to begin with.  The Constitution as we know it was written because the Articles of Confederation were too rigid and destined to fail. The Constitution incorporates massive compromises that, had they not been made, likely would have prevented any form of governance between the disparate parties.

Furthermore, I would argue that upholding the right own and sell human beings as property as a "moral ideal" ought to have been so far beyond the pale that we could assume the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that they were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling them back from such corruption.

Yet, here we are.

 

The problem we have is our definitions of slavery.

Something that has bothered people for many years, especially in the past 50 is that slavery is NOT condemned in the Bible. 

The problem is HOW that slavery is conducted.  The Bible includes BOTH forms in direct contrast to each other.

The story of Joseph portrays the good and bad of slavery as well.  Joseph was a slave in both good and bad conditions.

In the portion where being a slave is good he is the second most powerful person in Egypt.  He has more power and freedom than most that are not slaves.  In this instance, being a slave is akin to being the representative of your master directly to the people. 

This type of slavery has been utilized in the past in various ways, sometimes good and other times bad.  The Mamluks were a dominent force in North Africa and the Middle East but were slaves.  They were the power that everyone feared.  A bunch of slaves that were a military.

Similarly, the Jannisaries were slaves to the Royal Ottomans.  People would try to give their children into this slave military just so the children could have the power and privilege of it. 

These groups were brutal in their training, but they had far more power than many others...and were slaves.

Slavery is used as an allegory in the Bible to each of us in some instances. 

This is seen directly by the descendants of Jacob.  When the Children of Israel came to Egypt and submitted to Joseph, just like Joseph, they were slaves to Pharaoh.  This was a path to great power for them and prestige.  However, they were slaves and later were subjected to great evil as such.  The new Pharaoh acted evilly and the slavery they practiced was wrong in many ways.  Thus, they were under an evil master.  They needed deliverance but in that needed to be freed by Pharaoh or another.  Until the price for them was exacted (In Pharaoh's case he didn't wish to let them go until finally he lost his son, which is also a similitude to what the price to free us from our own slavery to sin is) they were not freed.  They finally were freed and went on a journey (very long one) to the promised land (also allegorical to our own journeys in life).

In a similar manner

We each sell ourselves into slavery.  When we sin we sell our souls.  Just like a man could not free another master's slaves simply by stating it, we cannot be freed so easily from selling ourselves into slavery by sin.  A slave must be bought from the other at the price demanded and become the slave of the one who bought them before they could be freed.  In a like manner, we are bought by the Savior.  It is only through him that we can be freed from the slavery we impose upon ourselves by our sins.

HOWEVER...and this is something many do not think on as much, when we are bought we are then slaves to the savior.  We are HIS bond-servants as one could put it.  He will free the slaves, but he had to pay the price to buy them first.  In this, he is ALSO the good master (as opposed to the bad master).

Our modern morality equates slavery with evil.  However, it is only certain types of slavery and HOW those who are the masters act towards their slaves that are really evil in regards to what the Bible considers wrong.  Most of what we see in the South was the bad type of slavery.  Historically though not all slavery was considered evil or wrong and in some cases was seen as the path to great power. 

This is NOT me condoning the slavery as we see in the Southern United States, but remarking that the idea that all slavery is wrong no matter what is a modern idea of our modern western society and based upon current relative morality rather than a Biblical morality. 

Part 2 -

With that said, I agree that the Constitution incorporates many compromises and has far more flexibility which allows compromise and change over time.  It is why it has stood so long thus far.  There is a line of thought in Historical circles (as well as political science) that goes over the idea of virtue vs. self interest.  (it's not the only line of thought in this area, but one which I think can pertain to this conversation).

It has that the founders were well read and knew of the conflict between self interest and virtue.  Virtue in this manner is one that seeks to help and further society and civilization with no thought of return to oneself.  Self-Interest is one where one's only thought is how something will benefit them.  In society there is both virtue and self-interest.  Each must be addressed in order for a balanced government to operate.

The constitution thus was written in relation to both issues, virtue and self-interest.  This way a government composed of those who only were in it to benefit themselves but not for society as a whole could be balanced out with their self-interests interposing with each other to make a more balanced and fair government.  In the same manner it also allows those who are virtuous to be involved and promote the welfare of society in the same government.

This is wholly independent of religion and means that the ideals of the Constitution can still be flexible enough to continue operating when we have a nation composed of people from all types of faiths, morality, and walks of life represented within it's framework. 

We had many founders involved with the composition of the United States Constitution.  They did not all share the same ideas or beliefs.  It is the combination of their working together which brought the Constitution to life...not just the words or actions of one or two of those who were behind it's writing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

My apologies on the Adams-Madison mix up. Multi tasking doesn't work well for me anymore.

I will go back to the questions of Catholics and Episcopalians, however. I would find it hard to take seriously a claim that Episcopalias do not live according to Judeo-Christian values as taught in the Bible. While the former is opposed to gay marriage and the latter is not, there is still far more those two religions share than separate them. I don't see how their disagreement on such a small subset of principles renders constitutional government ineffectual.

I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's as I never said anything about those specific religions. To the extent a religion teaches it's followers to live Judeo-Christian values I think our Constitution can be upheld. Though i specifically say "can" because far too often good intentions are having a disastrous effect on our country and the effectiveness of the Constitution.

Coming back full circle, for example the gay issue, under the name of equality, is being used as a battering ram against religious freedom. This is an instance where the Constitution is failing to be adequate because non-Judeo-Christian values are being given equal status in the eyes of the law. So to this extent some religions, intentionally or not, are helping to destabilize the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's as I never said anything about those specific religions. To the extent a religion teaches it's followers to live Judeo-Christian values I think our Constitution can be upheld. Though i specifically say "can" because far too often good intentions are having a disastrous effect on our country and the effectiveness of the Constitution.

To clarify, from my initial response to you (with parentheticals added)

Quote

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is an affront to God (eg, Catholic); the second holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is of equal morality to heterosexual marriage (eg, Episcopal).  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

Isn't a legal prohibition against gay marriage an imposition against the free exercise of the Episcopal religion?

Quote

Coming back full circle, for example the gay issue, under the name of equality, is being used as a battering ram against religious freedom. This is an instance where the Constitution is failing to be adequate because non-Judeo-Christian values are being given equal status in the eyes of the law. So to this extent some religions, intentionally or not, are helping to destabilize the Constitution.

I will disagree with you here. In my perception, the issue is not that "non-Judeo Christian values are being given equal statis in the eyes of the law." The issue is that the Constitutional process of feeling out and establishing new boundaries is slow (and deliberately so), and that many of the parties involved are disinterested in talking to each other, building empathy, and establishing compromise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share