Religion and Gay Marriage

I recently read an article that states:gaymarriage_blogistan

“Government should get out of the marriage business. If the government had nothing to do with marriage, we could drop all the divisive issues about gay marriage, and just let people marry in whichever churches or other institutions will marry them.”

On the flip side, there are those who defend traditional marriage because of their religious beliefs.  They argue that gay marriage activists are attacking their religious beliefs and, as reported by Chuck Colson back in May, gay activists, are attacking from all angles. Here is what he said: …

“… The bad news is that, in 2005, a man claimed the company violated his rights by not offering a matchmaking service to homosexuals. He lodged a complaint with the New Jersey attorney general, who found probable cause that eHarmony had violated state anti-discrimination laws. eHarmony vigorously disagreed.

Nevertheless, last year, eHarmony agreed to develop a matchmaking service for same-sex couples—and pay $55,000 in fines.

As I said yesterday on BreakPoint, we’ve seen this scenario over and over again. Christians or Orthodox Jews open up a business, ministry, or school, and sooner or later, a same-sex couple shows up demanding services that conflict with the sincerely held religious convictions of those they confront. When the same-sex couple is turned down, they promptly sue—even if others offer to accommodate them for the same services. And too often, they are winning their cases.

It’s as if the First Amendment no longer exists. I can’t help but suspect that radical gays deliberately target outfits run by religious believers in order to force them to accommodate their political agenda—or go out of business.

So what can we do about this? How can we protect our First Amendment rights—and marriage itself?”

Wow! That’s enough to make one sit up and take notice.  The homosexuals ask “what do you care if we get married? It doesn’t affect you!”  Well, as we can see above, and in the following, it does affect us.

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle—that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman—was at stake.

The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption—a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly—get out of the business.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway—even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.

My question to you dear reader, is how can gay marriage and strongly held religious beliefs tolerate each other? Post your opinions below.

2 thoughts on “Religion and Gay Marriage”

  1. Tolerance is prescribed in Philippians 4:5 “let your gentleness be evident to all”. This I believe should be the stance of the believer. But Sir Elton John says that tolerance is a dirty word and that we should celebrate his lifestyle. I partly understand him, I wish all would embrace my belief system. But, in this difficult world, tolerance will be what helps us survive.

  2. ‘morning, maaark! I agree that tolerance should be the stance of the believer but must add that it should be the stance of everyone. As you see in the examples above, the homosexual activists are intolerant of those who disagree with their lifestyle. In each of the above cases, it is the homosexual who is attacking.

    My belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I should not be forced by the government to participate (by renting to, or adopting to or treating) in an act that is against my religious beliefs.

    And most of the homosexuals who call us intolerant have no understanding of the word. Tolerate means to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with <learn to tolerate one another. It does not mean to agree with someone or accept their beliefs or actions.

Leave a Reply