news-record.com

OPINION

Same-sex marriages pose no threat to others

Tuesday, October 27, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

A judge in Louisiana has attracted attention for refusing to perform civil marriages between mixed-race couples.

At one time, many states had laws on the books that prohibited mixed-race marriages. Today most people marry spouses who are of the same race, but we no longer outlaw marriages that cross racial lines.

Many Christians believe that the New Testament requires them to oppose the recognition of civil marriage of same-sex couples under state and federal law. Many other Christians believe in the separation of church and state.

They believe that churches and temples should remain free to decline to perform same-sex weddings, but state and federal government should not have laws that prohibit civil marriage between two consenting adults.

They believe in a democracy where the majority rules, but that the majority has a responsibility to protect rights of minorities.

Same-sex couples will always be a minority, but we in the majority should protect minority rights in that case, too.

Having known a number of gay couples who are in long-term loving, committed, monogamous relationships, I have become convinced that such relationships represent no danger to my marriage or to other straight marriages.

We should recognize their right to civil marriage.

 

Linda Stroupe
Greensboro

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

lilbean

October 27, 2009 - 3:45 am EDT

"They believe that churches and temples should remain free to decline to perform same-sex weddings"

churches and temples but not mosques???

any legislation "forcing" christian churches or jewish temples to perform same sex marriages will be thrown out if the muslims are not also "forced" to do such. this is where the left loses support. civil unions plus leftists churches equals end of story. can't have that can we? gotta force those bastard christians to disavow the word of god for the sake of political correctness. have at libbys, you're opening a can of worms that will have dire consequences and the fight is absolutely yours and yours alone.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 5:10 am EDT

I almost agree, little bean:

Churches and temples AND mosques should remain free to perform same-sex weddings.
Churches and temples AND mosques should remain free to decline same-sex weddings.

That said - I also support the right of any two people to enter into a legally binding contract where they obligate themselves and society to the same "legal rights and responsibilties" as the standard married couple have.

Interested

October 27, 2009 - 6:03 am EDT

Nowhere in her letter does Mrs. Stroupe indicate that mosques (or any other type of house of worship) should be treated any differently than churches and temples. Nor does she suggest that legislation should be passed "forcing" them to perform same sex marriages; in fact, she says quite the opposite - that they should be free to "opt out" so to speak. Either you did not read very carefully or you are the one who in fact is "opening a can of worms" by twisting what she says.

J Peterman Reality Tour

October 27, 2009 - 8:16 am EDT

muslims are a joke . . . where in the Queeran do they allow man on man love? Also don't they beat the crap outta you for having a beer?

rightwingnemesis

October 27, 2009 - 9:39 am EDT

A friend recently sent me this via email, and I find it quite on the mark. If you have never heard of John Shelby Spong, it is deserving of a google.

"A MANIFESTO! THE TIME HAS COME!
John Shelby Spong

Thursday October 15, 2009

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant." I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement. I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves. I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.

I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings, who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go unchallenged.

In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.

I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude. I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population. I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable.

I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be. Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dismantled as the policy of our armed forces. We will and we must learn that equality of citizenship is not something that should ever be submitted to a referendum. Equality under and before the law is a solemn promise conveyed to all our citizens in the Constitution itself. Can any of us imagine having a public referendum on whether slavery should continue, whether segregation should be dismantled, whether voting privileges should be offered to women? The time has come for politicians to stop hiding behind unjust laws that they themselves helped to enact, and to abandon that convenient shield of demanding a vote on the rights of full citizenship because they do not understand the difference between a constitutional democracy, which this nation has, and a "mobocracy," which this nation rejected when it adopted its constitution. We do not put the civil rights of a minority to the vote of a plebiscite.

I will also no longer act as if I need a majority vote of some ecclesiastical body in order to bless, ordain, recognize and celebrate the lives and gifts of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. No one should ever again be forced to submit the privilege of citizenship in this nation or membership in the Christian Church to the will of a majority vote.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union. I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church's participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth." I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.

This is my manifesto and my creed. I proclaim it today. I invite others to join me in this public declaration. I believe that such a public outpouring will help cleanse both the church and this nation of its own distorting past. It will restore integrity and honor to both church and state. It will signal that a new day has dawned and we are ready not just to embrace it, but also to rejoice in it and to celebrate it."

Mick

October 27, 2009 - 11:07 am EDT

Promises.... promises.

firerescuechick

October 27, 2009 - 3:50 pm EDT

Hear, Hear!!! It's about d@$% time someone said it! It's unfortunate it took this long to be said.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

October 27, 2009 - 6:02 am EDT

The secular, legal qualities of marriage are often overlooked, and most people tend to focus solely on the the religious. No religious organization should be compelled to perform any religious rite that goes against their faith, but the state should not be in the business of denying equal rights rights under the law.

The authority to marry comes from the state, not God. Marriage Certificates are obtained at the courthouse. There is a reason why the person performing the ceremony says '...by the power vested in me by the State of North Carolina..."

rmacz

October 27, 2009 - 7:36 pm EDT

Great point! Anyone in clergy should decline.

Yvonne

October 27, 2009 - 6:31 am EDT

I support the rights of two consenting adults to exchange vows and have the same benefits as any other couple who does the same. However, I also believe in the separation of church and state. Thus I am of the opinion any laws to force religious institutions to host "marriages" is wrong. That being said, professionals should not have the privilege of picking and choosing who they want to receive their services. Men and women of the cloth have the obligation of treating all their congregation in like manner. If he/she performs marriages between a man and woman, he/she should not have the right to discriminate against same sex couples. Just as the man who refuses to perform mixed race marriages, other men/women of the cloth are bringing their religious beliefs into a legal transaction. Religion and the law should remain separate, all in my opinion of course.

ravencottage

October 27, 2009 - 6:52 am EDT

And as usual your opinion sucks.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 7:08 am EDT

I guess you disagree, black-bird-house.

If you support the "opposite" of Yvonne's opinion: You want laws to force organized religions into sanctify marriage and you want the union of religion and state - so you must be Islamic.

Rollo

October 27, 2009 - 8:06 am EDT

I'm not sure where you got that idea JDR.

Yvonne said:
"That being said, professionals should not have the privilege of picking and choosing who they want to receive their services. Men and women of the cloth have the obligation of treating all their congregation in like manner. If he/she performs marriages between a man and woman, he/she should not have the right to discriminate against same sex couples."

Sounds to me like she's saying the state should be able to force anyone licensed to marry folks, to perform the marriage, regardless of their own beliefs. Frankly, that's the problem I have with the gay agenda. I really don't care if gays and lesbians want to get married. However, you can't force people to accept it, if their religious views forbid it.

Yet, if you don't accept that lifestyle, you're automatically branded "homophobic." Sounds more to me like we've got a lot of "heterophobic" folks out there.

Interested

October 27, 2009 - 8:26 am EDT

"The state should be allowed to force anyone licensed to marry folks . . . regardless of their own beliefs. Frankly, that's the problem I have with the gay agenda." There is actually a precedent for this requirement, and it has nothing to do with the "gay agenda." Pharmacists are required to dispense birth control and the morning after pill, regardless of their personal beliefs.

MH492

October 27, 2009 - 9:12 am EDT

Rollo,
You forgot, if you disagree with the agenda of the left, you're a "racists" on top of being a "homophobe."

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 10:00 am EDT

"I'm not sure where you got that idea JDR."

==

"Thus I am of the opinion any laws to force religious institutions to host "marriages" is wrong."

The opposite:

"Laws should force religious institutions to host "marriages"

a.k.a.: You want laws to force organized religions to sanctify marriage.

==

"Religion and the law should remain separate"

The opposite:

"Religion and the law should remain discreet.

a.k.a You want the union of religion and state ... a key element in Fundamental Islamic Religion.

Mick

October 27, 2009 - 8:12 am EDT

Yvonne, ...

I am confused. So you do want to force churches to marry any and all?

Yvonne

October 27, 2009 - 9:20 am EDT

Mick,

Thanks for asking rather than just assuming. I have already stated I think forcing a religious institution, be it church, mosque or temple to host a marriage ceremony is wrong. In trying to separate religion from the legal institution of marriage, I may not have been clear. Most clergy (people, not buildings) are licensed people. If anyone licensed to perform a service cannot do so without discrimination, then their license should be surrendered or taken. Marriage is a licensed transaction by licensed people. The law does not support discrimination. Therefore, what I am saying is, while a licensed professional is obligated to uphold the law, I think no one is obligated to hold any ceremony in any religious building.

I should add, I cannot imagine any gay couple asking someone who has issues with their lifestyle to officiate at their ceremony. No matter what the orientation of the couple is, that commitment ceremony is special to them.

Interested

October 27, 2009 - 9:38 am EDT

Out of curiosity, aren't clergy (be they priests, ministers, rabbis, whatever) free to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple? For example, Catholic priests can refuse to marry people who have been divorced. If so, wouldn't they have to be free to refuse to marry a homosexual couple? Both refusals are based on religious beliefs.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 9:54 am EDT

Yvonne - How do you rationalize "Thus I am of the opinion any laws to force religious institutions to host "marriages" is wrong." with "If anyone licensed to perform a service cannot do so without discrimination, then their license should be surrendered or taken."

Yvonne

October 27, 2009 - 12:56 pm EDT

James,

I will use a doctor as an example of what I am trying to convey since I use medical professionals as a point of reference. Suppose a Catholic doctor (licensed by the state) is called to perform an emergency abortion in order to save a woman's life. Would he be justified in refusing to do it simply because it was against his religious beliefs or does he perform the abortion because that is what he has obligated himself to do by law?

In his personal life he can feel any way he wants because he has vowed no personal obligation to perform an abortion. However, since HE chose his profession and sought licensure in that profession, then in a professional capacity, he needs to put aside prejudices.

I worked hard for my license. If, however, I abused my license based on prejudice, discrimination or religious belief, I would expect my license to be rescinded or surrendered.

If a member of the clergy cannot perform a ceremony without discrimination, they should expect the same. The building that houses the "flock" usually does not belong to the person licensed to be the leader of that flock. Thus a church is different than a minister, rabbi, priest, etc.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 9:59 am EDT

"... that commitment ceremony is special to them."

Bingo. It is only (mostly) a ceremony ... the legal rights come elsewhere (mostly).

Mick

October 27, 2009 - 10:18 am EDT

Yvonne,

I cannot help but disagree on requiring clergy to marry gay couples licensed or not. To me, your argument is little more than a feeble back door attempt to NOT require the separation of Church and State when it so suits your agenda. Slippery slope aint it? You are contorting to have it both ways.

You are fooling yourself if you think there are not absolute militant gay couples or plain ol anti-social freaks who would relish nothing more than some outlandish marriage (think San Frans Gay Pride parade, etc) forced upon a local clergy and/or grand old church. I'll admit my scenario is the extreme but it would occur on day one. On the other hand, your contention ("I cannot imagine any gay couple ....") is far more than a little naive.

All that being said, I am not really against gay marriage. However, I would much rather be allowed to tolerate a particular practrice rather than be forced to accept it. Tolerance and Acceptance are not synonomous (sp?). Legally allowing gay marriage is far differant than forcing all clergy and/or churches to marry any and all who walk through the doors.

Again, slippery slope aint it. Have fun.

Yvonne

October 27, 2009 - 1:06 pm EDT

Mick,

I do not expect everyone to agree with me. That is not my purpose in being part of this forum. I neither condone nor condemn marriage, gay or straight. I only care about equality for ALL humans, not just straight, white ones.

I am curious, how have you been forced to accept gay marriage? How is it any skin off your nose either way? As the letter writer stated, who decides to marry does not threaten me, interfere with my own choices or disrupt my life in any way. So I will admit I do not understand all this hoopla.

Mick

October 27, 2009 - 1:36 pm EDT

I havent been forced yet. I'm just sayin.... I kinda said it wasnt skin off my nose in general. If you force or coerce my minister, priest, clergy, church, etc to conduct or host gay marriages it is then my nose and my skin.

No comments on church and state issue? Slope is gettin slipperyer and slipperyer, huh?

Why did you even mention "white"? Habit? Cant help yourself?

Slip slidin away................

Yvonne

October 27, 2009 - 2:26 pm EDT

Mick,

Although I think I have been quite clear on the subject, I will repeat myself (cause I am old and that's what old folks do). I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. This does NOT mean, however, I think clergy is exempt from following the laws of our nation. You seem to think holding clergy to the same standards as everyone else is combining church and state. The law of man is the one that governs our country. To allow anyone to discriminate, without fear of consequences, is not lawful. Even people of the cloth are not above the law.

Mick

October 27, 2009 - 5:55 pm EDT

As is very clear throughout this thread... no one thinks yoiu were clear in your statements.

So churches do not have to allow gay marriage but any clergy has to marry whomever asks them to do so? Seems an unworkable optiom. That may well lead to many churches simply not allowing non-member persons to have ceremonis. So do you send in the FBI or the State Police to force Baptist Ministers or Catholic Priests to marry to leather clad, S&M dudes?

Personally, I think there would be enough churches that would allow gay marriages that it wont be a problem. But I guess you want to force the issue.

brian444

October 27, 2009 - 12:58 pm EDT

Yvonne, you're simply saying two different and contradictory things:

(1) "laws to force religious institutions to host marriages [are] wrong"
(2) men and women of the cloth "should not have the right to discriminate against same sex couples"

If clergy are not allowed to have that "right," then you have in fact forced religious institutions to host marriages.

Yvonne

October 27, 2009 - 1:12 pm EDT

Clergy are licensed people. Buildings are inanimate structures. Only their purpose makes them different. So, unless a member of the clergy owns that building, he/she has no legal right to be making decisions about it's use.

Mick

October 27, 2009 - 1:37 pm EDT

two words .... law and suits

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search