07 April 2009

Yes, We Honor The Law, Except When It Goes Against Our Traditions

Those who protest same-sex marriage on religious grounds should read the Iowa Supreme Court's response to such opposition:

"It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical interpretation. The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained— even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.31

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage."

To that, I would add only one thing: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

1 comment:

Beck said...

That should read: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, because if we don't (give up polygamy) then we won't ever receive statehood and be loved by everyone. We alos believe that it is okay to not pay attention to the Law, because doing so results in a huge increase in baptisms of illegal aliens, which after all is more important than those earthly laws."

Don't get me wrong. I have no grief with illegal aliens who are coming to improve their lives in this country. But, I find it funny that the church turns a completely blind eye to legal status of newly baptized members and refuses to get involved in this law, but will get involved with marriage laws that are on the civil level, not higher spiritual level.

Why can the Church overturn a revealed religious practice in defense of honoring the law, turn a blind eye to the immigration laws in order to be bring salvation thru baptism to law-breakers, and then fight with viciousness for another law on civil marriage when what they are defending is a religious marriage practice?

Because it's convenient for them.