First, there's an article to at least gloss over. The italicized parts give a good idea of where they're going with this one...
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008385.cfm
Citizen link? My first complaint with the article is that for some reason it seems to assume that religion has a right to have a bearing on legal limitations. I'm pretty sure we're allowed to follow whatever religion we want, or no religion at all. I'm sort of offended by the title of the website considering the content of their site. Oh well. I guess they can say whatever they want right? As long as they don't somehow change the meaning the citizenship and for their sake, I hope they don't hold the mistaken belief that their religion is more important than others.
Their first point about why gay marriage is a problem has to do with the reference to one person in the wedding being called the bride and the other, the groom. Apparently California state law changed it to "Party A" and "Party B". Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Why does it matter whater either person is called? Why does it matter to any law? And why would anyone suggest that it's the fault of gay marriage that the state came up with a misguided change? The "Citizen Link" definitely messed up on this one. Sure, they (religious types) might insist on calling themselves "Bride and Groom"... that's fine. I've got no complaint with it. Everyone should be able to choose what to call themselves in that context too.
Their next point has to do with how churches might lose their tax exempt status if they hold one sexual behavior/preference above others... like if a church says homosexual behavior is wrong, they could lose their tax exempt status. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt to begin with. I don't go to any church. I don't benefit from any church that I'm aware of. I pay taxes, and the companies that I'm aware of pay taxes, so why don't churches pay taxes? They are corporations that provide a service to people who look for it. They have employees. They have customers. Paying customers even... how much money do they make in donations? yeah yeah... donations aren't technically payment... but it's a fine line, and no religious institution should be exempt from taxes.
So I guess in a way, I agree with Citizen Link. Churches shouldn't lose their tax exempt status over views on sexual orientation. What they left out is that Chruces should lose their tax exempt status anyway. But this leads me to another dissappointment with Citizen Link. They seem to be asserting that Churches should keep their tax exempt status. They based their argument on a faulty premise. I'm sad if legislators try to use sexual orientation as an excuse, but if churches lose their tax exempt status, I'll be happy.
The article's next point is about how parents are losing the right to oversee the sexual education of their children in Massachusetts where gay marriage is the moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Again, we have something where they are looking at it wrong AND making a faulty assertion.
How can you lose the right to teach your children your beliefs about sexual relationhips unless you're doing something damaging to the children? You can tell your kids that gay marriage is wrong all you want. Just don't expect any public school to support a religious belief over the freedom of human beings to marry who they like. Heck, why are schools responsible for teaching kids about relationships anyway? There's no class taught about what's right or wrong in relationships, unless you consider health class to be responsible for filling kids heads with unsupported notions of a religion? Health classes are responsible for making kids aware of actual health issues... not religious issues. So if you want to teach your kids to be closed minded, that's still your right. And Massachusetts (I never thought I'd be defending Massachusetts since I have my own complaints with it) is not a bad state for supporting gay marriage.
Also, what makes anyone think that heterosexuality is more moral than homosexuality? I don't even know where to begin on this one. If I say that cleaning your house of dust is a crime against your own dead skin particles... disrespecting your own flesh... and I whole-heartedly believe it... would you agree that your cleaning of the dust in your house is less moral than my behavior? If I say that it's an atrosity that a religious person speak one word of their religious belief to me, would you consider it immoral because I said so? The only argument I can think of that anyone might make to suggest that heterosexual marriage is more "moral" than a homosexual one is based on religion. And religion by definition is based on faith... a belief in something unprovable. Basically... what this article is saying is that gay marriage is less moral because "they say so". There's absolutely nothing to support that. Hell... gay marriage might even be hugely good for human kind... we're already overpopulating our planet... gay couples can't conceive on their own. So the birth rate goes down. And gay couples may decide to adopt, helping kids without a good home already. I'm just throwing some possibilities out there. But even what I'm saying doesn't make gay marriage moral either. I'm trying to get to the idea that morality is not related to marriage. It only comes into play when the act of marrying includes something that hurts someone. And then the act that's hurting someone is what has the moral issue... not the marriage to begin with. Okay... I've babbled enough about that one. I hope it was understandable.
The article's final point is about small business owners not being to operate and still hold their deep religious belief. Well, I think that this one is a bit touchy. The article provides an example of a religious couple that turned away a gay couple from their photography business for wedding photos or something. Apparently, the business was fined for turning them away. I can see both sides of the situation, so I guess this one is the one I have the least complaint with. Discrimination is what the article forgot. Discriminating based on religion is not okay in this country as far as what I understand. If you have a business that anyone can walk into, you're not supposed to turn them away just because they happen to think Zeus and the other gods of his kind are real. Just like it would be wrong to turn you Jesus/God loving people away because of your belief. I'm an agnostic with a belief that atheism is probably right. Would you turn me away because I don't believe in God? Why would it be okay to turn away two guys who just want pictures taken of their happy day? It's a business... so can't discriminate because of homosexuality. So I guess I changed my mind. I disagree with the article. The couple that turned down the customers because of their belief was horribly rude, and legally improper. They can express their distaste, and maybe the gay couple would choose someone else on their own, but denying them service... that was wrong.
So I guess that's another post on my part about how religion is a bad influence on our society. I don't begrudge religious people the right to believe as they see fit, but I do take exception with it when it negatively impacts the people around them and even more so when it tries to affect government and law.
