[Magdalen] Scripture Study Redux

[Roger Stokes]

It seems to me that the dissenting and protesting Justices are 
forgetting an essential concomitant of the constitutional separation of 
Church and state.  A faith body can impose whatever restrictions it 
likes on its own members.  It should not seek to constrain the ability 
of the various civil authorities to do what they believe is right for 
the populace as a whole.

Nobody is compelled to avail themselves of the permissions the civil law 
grants.  All that is required is that faith groups and others recognize 
these as legitimate options for those who do not share their faith 
position.  Faith groups can say "we do not think this is wise" and give 
reasons for that view but those reasons should not derive solely from a 
faith standpoint.  If they do then they will (rightly) be rejected by 
those who do not share that standpoint.

There have been problems over the years in Ireland as various 
Catholic-inspired parts of their Conbstitution have been rolled back 
under public pressure. This side of the pond the government has 
legislated on how faith groups may avail themselves of the right to 
solemnise same-sex marriages.  The default position is that they cannot 
do so unless the national body agrees to apply for permission.

Roger

On 27/07/2015 17:57, Jim Guthrie wrote:
> Learn something new every day -- the Scripture passages used against 
> LGBT people are called "Clobber Passages."
>
>> From the moment the Supreme Court ruled last month in favor of a 
>> constitutional 
> right to same-sex marriage, opponents placed the decision in a very 
> specific analytical frame. Here, they contended, was an egregious 
> example of secular culture triumphing over religious values and 
> religious freedom.
>
> “Profoundly immoral and unjust,” the United States Conference of 
> Catholic Bishops said in a statement. The Orthodox Union, the national 
> association of Orthodox Jewish congregations, declared its “emphatic” 
> and “unalterable” religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The 
> prominent evangelist Franklin Graham reiterated that God had created 
> marriage between man and woman and said, “His decisions are not 
> subject to review or revision by any man-made court.”
>
> In the dissenting opinions in the 5-to-4 vote, justices seemed to 
> anticipate the battles to come over adherence to the law by 
> individuals and institutions that doctrinally oppose same-sex 
> marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas noted the “potentially ruinous 
> consequences for religious liberty,” while Chief Justice John G. 
> Roberts Jr. wrote, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort 
> in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”
>
> Yet the discussion of secularism versus religion is incomplete. It 
> ignores or elides the growing number of theologians and religious 
> scholars in a range of faiths who, over a half-century, have been 
> assembling and espousing scriptural arguments in favor of gay rights 
> and ultimately marriage equality. The debate about same-sex marriage 
> that has gotten too little attention is the intrareligious one.
>
> Well worth the read at:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/push-within-religions-for-gay-marriage-gets-little-attention.htmlCheers, 
>
> Jim
>
> "The enemy isn’t liberalism;
> the enemy isn’t conservatism.
> The enemy, is baloney." - Lars Erik Nelson
>