Letter to the Editor Published

anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Letter to the Editor Published

I just wanted to thank the many posters on this site for prodding me to think about certain issues.  The time I have spent on this site has forced me to organize my thoughts and figure out what is logic and what is emotion regarding several issues rather than leaving it all in a jumble in my mind.  Thank you for making me think!

Because of this, when I recently read an opinion piece in the local paper that didn't make sense to me I wrote back.  They published my letter to the editor today.  This is a little something, but I am quite pleased to once again be stirring up some trouble even if it is on a very low level (and starting to step out of the atheist closet) .  So, thank you.

 

(Here is the original opinion piece: )

    Marriage debate belongs in church


Government should have no say over who marries whom — it's a religious issue

 

 

 

 

 

January 16, 2009 ..

An Ashland church's decision to conduct several gay and lesbian weddings has reignited the debate locally over same-sex marriage. For many, it's a debate that springs from deeply held religious convictions regarding marriage and how it should be defined.
 

In our view, that debate belongs not in the public square, but exactly where those wedding ceremonies took place — in church.
 

Government sanctions marriage by conferring legal rights and responsibilities on married people. But government does not and cannot pass judgment on the religious nature of those unions.
 

From the government's perspective, a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, binding on both parties. It protects the two individuals by ensuring, among other things, that they can bequeath to and inherit property from each other, make life-and-death medical decisions for their partner and visit their loved one in a hospital. Marriage also protects children by obligating their parents to provide and care for them.
 

Religious marriages, on the other hand, confer something more — the blessing of God and the recognition of a spiritual union by the religious community to which the partners belong. Government cannot do that, nor can it compel churches to marry anyone.
 

That is as it should be, and that is why the issue of same-sex marriage ought to be left up to churches and other religious entities. Government's role should be limited to granting civil unions — to any couple that wants one. Everyone gets treated fairly, no one is left out, and no one's union is any more or less valuable than anyone else's.
 

Want to get married? Fine — find a church or other religious organization that will agree to marry you.
 

Want the legal protections that go along with it? The government will certify a civil union between you and your partner of the opposite sex or of the same sex.
 

Some churches will perform same-sex weddings, some will not. Some churches will marry a man and a woman of different faiths, some will not.
 

The point is, churches have the absolute right to make those distinctions. Government should not.
 

If the county clerk — who is legally authorized to perform weddings — refused to marry a Jewish man and a Catholic woman, the couple and the public would be outraged. But the local parish priest or rabbi could refuse to bless that union and no one would bat an eye.
 

Somehow, it is acceptable that government passes judgment on same-sex unions but not on interfaith, heterosexual ones. That's because our civil laws and our religious convictions — our government and our churches — have become improperly intertwined when it comes to marriage.
 

It's time to get government out of the marriage business.
 

 
 

Here was my response (printed in today's paper):
 

Editorial's conclusions confusing

I would agree with the facts you have outlined in Friday's opinion piece regarding the discriminatory prohibition of gay marriage by religious organizations, however your conclusions are a bit confusing.
 

Yes, marriage is a civil contract. Therefore, it is a matter in which the state is involved, not any religious organization. If a religious organization wishes to designate certain unions as conforming to their mythology, that's fine. Perhaps they would like to use the name "religious marriages"?
 

That's just a suggestion, of course. The actual term in use should be left up to each religious group.
 

However, a religiously based marriage should remain separate from the civil institution that our society has found to be beneficial and codified into our secular body of law. There is no reason for the rest of us to redefine marriage as civil union in order to appease believers of ancient mythology. It would seem more rational to expect them to operate outside of secular law than to redefine that law to suit their, often discriminatory, purposes. — (my real name and town)

 

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


ThorLovesYou
ThorLovesYou's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2008-11-20
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:There is no

anniet wrote:

There is no reason for the rest of us to redefine marriage as civil union in order to appease believers of ancient mythology.

 

Let me display my ignorance for all to see: I personally don't see what the big deal is about the term "civil union". If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then who cares what you call it? I don't have any problem with my wife and I being legally identified as having a "civil union" if that means that homosexual couples can have the same thing if they so desire. Of course in common everday conversation we're all going to call it marriage anyway.

It seems like there is a lot of emotion being hung on the word "marriage". If changing the word levels the playing field, I'm all for that. I guess I'm pretty much in agreement with the original opinion piece. I don't see this as being a problem along the lines of separate-but-equal since it wouldn't be separate...we'd all have civil unions, right? The separation would be between the religious and the legal connotations, and some churches will still marry homosexuals, or mixed-faiths, or whatever, so you could hypothetically have a civil union and a marriage if you wanted to.

Of course I also don't understand how someone else getting "married", whether I approve of them or not, has any bearing on my marriage or anyone else's, so I guess the whole thing is lost on me. Hey, if seven dwarves and one lady named "Snow White" all want to get married, what do I care? If calling it a civil union gets them where they want to go then I'm fine with that too.

I'm sure I'm missing something and someone will be upset. I apologize in advance.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Using the word 'marriage'

Using the word 'marriage' instead of civil partnership is just plain bad politics. Improving civil rights is always incremental you grab them when you can. The word marriage can be used later


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Gay Atheist: Hi Mom!

 Gay Atheist: Hi Mom!  Hey, great news!  We're getting civil unionized!

 

Meh... doesn't feel quite equal, if you ask me.  Yeah, I know it's just a word, but anniet makes a really good point.  If we bring marriage to the church and define something new for everyone else, it's essentially the same as saying the religion was more valid than the non-religion.  It's basically saying, "OK... you were right about the whole marriage thing... (they're not right... they need to read some history) but we want to do our little gay thing anyway so we're going to invent a new term."

The religion is the one trying to play outside the rules and make laws conform to them.  Better to do it the other way around and if they can conform to their beliefs within the law then their beliefs are fine.  If their beliefs are outside the laugh, tough titties.  Religion shouldn't be getting special breaks or having laws built around them.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Using the word

 

Quote:
Using the word 'marriage' instead of civil partnership is just plain bad politics. Improving civil rights is always incremental you grab them when you can. The word marriage can be used later

Don't get me wrong... if they'd accept marriage and let everyone else have civil unions, we'd be right to take it.  But... it is a subtle way of making the church look right and the nontheists look like assholes.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
That is excellent, anniet.

That is excellent, anniet.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
That's all bullshit. People

That's all bullshit. People have been having monogamous relationships for thousands of years before recorded history or religion. It's ridiculous to call marriage religious. I don't know where they get the connection from. People who have never read the bible or even heard of Yahweh, Jesus, Jehovah, or any other religious figure have still been married. Just because the bible happens to mention it does not mean that it is the source.

Hamby's right. They shouldn't have to call it anything other than what it is. It's unjust. Anybody remember "separate but equal?" This is the same fucking thing. It's seperate but not equall.

[edit]I forgot to comend you for your work Anniet. Keep fighting the good fight.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace