Golden Rule dominates Minnesota’s gay marriage debate
July 15, 2012 at 7:05 pm in Grand Forks Herald
It’s a story 2,000 years old: People read the same words in the Bible, but come up with different conclusions. That is center to a debate about amending the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The bottom-line difference is about whether religious doctrine allows gays to marry Continue Reading
Isn’t there supposed to be a separation of church and state? I understand some religions disagree with gay marriage, but under this idea, religion should have no say in how the state recognizes a marriage? Let the church do their thing, but the state recognize same sex couples at their respectable level.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
15
Technically, according to the constitution, there is no separation of church and state. However I offer these quotes:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” – Bill of rights, Article 3
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” – Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
“By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.” – Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University
Thus: since the US is a secular nation, same-sex marriages/civil unions should be legal. But that doesn’t mean that a church, synagog, mosque, etc. has to perform or allow it. Unless the government forces religious groups to perform the joinings their religious freedoms are not being infringed upon.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
12
Exactly Zach, as we have detailed many times before, marriage is a two part proposition. One religious and one secular. The two are not, nor have they ever been interchangable. I wish people knew their history a little better. It would make these debates so much more productive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
The foundation of marriage is it is a religious ceremony(not neccesarily Christian). I believe the government has no business marrying people, civil joining yes, but not a religious marriage. But I also believe the government has no business recognizing religious marriage for legal reasons. This would mean that a faith would decide which people it would marry but it would have no legal purpose just religious. If a person wanted that they would need to enter into a civil contract. Those who are gay could easily find a religious organization they could join to get married. But they could also just enter into a civil contract if all they want is the legal rights( which is what the large majority of them want).
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
14
Well tell that to every county office in the United States. They all have a racket going charging for a marriage license that is required before you can get married. I am sure if we eliminated it from the budget that county auditors across the country would be up in arms because they would no longer have the funds in their budgets.
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
AS I stated a Religious marriage would NOT grant any legal rights just religious. If a person wanted the legal contract they would still need to get a license for a civil contract so fees would still be collected if you want the legal rights.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Religion should not be the basis for any law or rule that does not apply to the people who belong to that religion. Freedom “of” religion is also freedom “from” religion. If you don’t support gay marriage, then don’t turn gay and don’t get married. Simple. I sure don’t want to have to live according to someone else’s religious bents.
Now, work with common sense, or safety, or protecting women and children, and we have another conversation altogether. But this doesn’t affect any of those.
I also love how you see old men holding signs protesting against abortion, but that is another topic too…
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
9
You are dead wrong freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion. Freedom FROM religion would prohibit the use, wearing, speech and recognizable religious building from the public view which would mean you could not build them at all. There is NO freedom FROM religion in this country and I pray there never will be.
Like or Dislike:
19 
10
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom of organized religion either. It simply states that any American can choose to worship in the method that they choose. Whether that be Buddha, Yahweh, Mother Earth or any other deity. That also includes no religion whether you like it or not.. If someone chooses not to worship that is also protected by the constitution not matter what the Christian Fundamentalists in this country would like people to believe.
Like or Dislike:
17 
6
I certainly agree that no one can or should be forced to practice any religion. Although I believe that Atheism is a religion. I did not state everyone has to pray. And I am sure some Christan Fundamentalists believe that, I am not a Christan Fundamentalist.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
LOL, if atheism is a religion, then virginity is a sex position!
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Atheism is not a religion. It simply means that a person does not believe in a deity or god. I would think that in order for it to be a religion, there would need to be a set of rules for practicing atheism. Which there is not. Very good analogy is the sex position comment…and it made me laugh. Another is like calling a person who plays no sports, likes no sports, can’t play any sports…an sports fan or athlete.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Lets see. Many, not all, Atheists are organized and promote their disbelief. They try to convert others to their belief, I have had several attempts made to convert me. Some go so far as to try to shove their disbelief down others throats……. Sounds like what many religions do to me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Of course, it’s generally not polite to try to impose your views on unwilling others. Often though, when atheists are continually thumped with bibles, it’s hard for them to resist thumping back.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I disagree. I have the freedom from religion. That isn’t intended to mean that I shouldn’t have to see a church steeple or hear people talk about their god. It simply means that there is no requirement for me to have a religion or believe in your god. It means that the catholic church can’t force me to come inside and kneel. Freedom of religion means that you have a choice and there is no official state religion.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Can anyone give an example of how allowing same gender couples the legal protection a marriage license provides harms them, their marriage or their family?
Seriously.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
13
The term marriage is a religious joining. While few have a problem with civil contracts for gay persons, or anyone else for that matter, many are offended by the use of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs. By the way there are religions that will marry gay persons. If the gay rights advocates had made this about civil contracts this would have been over long ago. It is simply the demand of marriage which enters into forcing a religion to recognize something against its teachings, or what some consider a blasphemy in the use of the word marraige.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
If marriage is such a hallowed institution, why can I get ordained through the internet and marry whomever I want? The best part is that it won’t cost me a dime with some churches.. They are recognized christian churches within the United States.
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
Glen; You did not complete your sentance. The term marriage is a religious joining of one Man and one Women.
Like or Dislike:
9 
12
Not at all as there are already religious organizations that will wed two men or women. It is just not legally recognized as awarding any legal rights by our government.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
This is how it would harm my family:
When I retire and want to apply for my union pension, military retirement, Social Security, etc. I may recieve less money.
Why? There is only so much money for retirement, paid out by the union pension fund, government pension, Social Security, etc.
If the retirement fund is required to pay money to additional persons, due to gay “marriage”, because they are going to apply for retirement benefits (as a “Spouse”), then nongays may have their retirement amount reduced to make up for it.
I detest that retirement funds that were setup to pay retirement funds for a worker and their spouse, now have to include payments to the “spouse” of a gay worker.
Also, if an employer pays family health insurance coverage for a worker, they will probably be forced to cover the gay “spouse”. Some employers could just cover the employee only. That would make employees with a straight spouse and children to go without family coverage.
Before you you support gay “marriage”, remmber that the gay “marriage” advocates want to tap into retirement and healthcare coverage. That may result in you having less retirement income and/or health insurance coverage.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
Aaah…anyone who contributes to a retirement fund should have the same benefit as you. Same with the medical. It’s not like there are a million gay couples waiting to be married in MN. They won’t break the bank. You are simply reciting right wing propaganda without thinking it through.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
This was the exact same thought process of slave owners in the beginning of our great country. They also thought along the lines of “I don’t want them to have the same rights as me because it will cost me money!” How can you and like-minded individuals not understand how this can be taken as bigoted?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
As always, no one ever has any examples. C’mon you three thumbs downers–there must be a reason you object other than hating gay people which I cannot really imagine you do.
Glen, I get it that people fear their church may be forced to do something they don’t want. But seriously, we can’t share a word? We’re considering constitutional law based on word definition? Are you kidding me? Did we have a vote when ‘amazing’ replaced ‘awesome’ as the most over used adjective?
As long as we can purchase the contracts and enjoy the legal benefits, we can call it Alfred for all anyone cares.
Like or Dislike:
16 
12
Come on mac….Haven’t you een paying attention…..It’s a major election….They pull something around this old gem whenever they need people to take their eyes off the real issues….And to get4 the religious right to the polls….This is tried and true and unfortunately it works every damn time…..That’s the real situation here….There are those who really have convictions, but mostly it’s just another shiny object to pay atention to…
Like or Dislike:
19 
10
Not true. the gay/lesbian movement that they are not willing to accept any word other than marriage. Which is the main reason I believe there is such a big fight about this. I have many gay and lesbian friends who agree with me.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
They are not willing to accept any other term than marriage because of the implications our government has put on that word. If our government had in its ‘infinite wisdom’ put all of the benefits afford to the word marriage to the word joining we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion now. I can’t say for certain, Mac would be a better source of that information in all honesty. But I support his and others efforts to become equals in the eyes of the law.
Like or Dislike:
12 
11
Well, I can speak for every gay person I know in that no one cares what it’s called as long as we can enjoy the same legal protections straight couples do.
I can also speak for every gay person I know in that if a church ceremony commemorating their commitment to each other is a priority, it’s very easy to find a church to accommodate. Had one ourselves 6 years ago in a beautiful historic mansion on the Assinaboine (sp) river in Manitoba.
US and Canadian society remains stable in spite of this.
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
Ok…”Merry” instead of Marriage…As in a Merry Gay Union……On the other hand….It’s a bit like “Jumping the stick” when blacks couldn’t be married. Most people finally accepted they were human enough to be allowed to be treated like other citizens…..I think we’re past due to treat gays like they too are human enough to be allowed to wed….
Like or Dislike:
18 
7
The solution I am speaking of would apply to everyone the same. There would be no different standard in legal rights or what it6 is called. What I propose would also require “straight” couples to enter a civil contract to obtain the legal rights as a couple.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Actually, the “golden rule” is dominating all US politics — as those who have the gold are making the rules!
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Home run…..
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Once more from the top people: marriage is and always has been a two part proposition. There is a religious and a secular component. They are and always have been two distinct arenas.
If marriage was only religious, then anyone married by a JOP would be committing a sin. Likewise, anyone not married by a Catholic priest would be living a life of perpetual fornication (I am sure all of the Protestants out there are glad to hear that).
In this country, marriage is mostly economic, and always has been. A quick study of marriage (there are several excellent books on the subject) shows why this is so.
In Colonial times, where there were not enough preachers to go around, couples would simply state their intentions to be married, registered as such, and lived as man and wife until the next time the preacher came to town. It was legally binding.
There are many such examples.
Marriage is an economic agreement between the couple and the state.
If the couple choose to make it so, it is also an agreement between the couple and God.
The agreement between the couple and the state is mandatory. The agreement between the couple and God is optional.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
As a quick aside: Romney’s Grandfather was Mexican. His family went to Mexico because they were tired of being persecuted for their religious choices.
If Mitt is elected and I am forced to convert to Mormonism, does that mean I can be like his Great Grandfather and have more than one wife?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Well if you do…Then I’m guessing you’ll be flying a lot more to get away from all the nagging…..What? You don’t get enough nagging from one ol’ lady? Sheeeeez…..
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Sure we will all have to become Mormon If Mitt wins just like we all had to become Catholic when Kennedy was President, or Quaker when Nixon was President………..
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Ya…How did that happen….Have you ever met a Quaker? I thought they were something like the Masons……You hear about them, but you never meet anyone who admits they are one…..Then again I know virtually nothing about Quakers…Never met one to explain it to me….
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I believe the Amish are most closely resembling the quakers nowadays. Very strict, very moral, god fearing and superstitious. I think John Hopkins, witchfinder general, was part of the quaker culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2