|
 |
 |
 Monday, May 08, 2006
Separating Marriage and State Watch/Bishop Gene V. Robinson
[Episcopalian Bishop Gene V. Robinson addressed the Log Cabin Republicans national convention April 28. Also on the panel were Atlanta religious publisher the Reverend Martha Simmons and the Reverend C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance. This report is from the Bay Area Reporter. (I know we disagree on the gay marriage issue, but perhaps the Rev.Simmons should reconsider her views of the history of religion in the Abolitionist movement? Maggie)] Bay Area Reporter, May 4, 2006 Marriage ". . . .The notion that my love for my partner somehow undermines somebody else's marriage is just pure idiocy," Robinson said. Drawing upon his own recent experience in a residential program for alcohol abuse, he added, "If the people really want to protect marriage in this country, they should be putting money into treatment centers for alcohol because that is what is undermining marriage." "In this country, unlike some others, we have put together the sacred and secular. Clergy act as agents of the state in solemnizing marriage. In our minds, the two have become inextricably linked. As clergy, we need to begin to separate civil rights from religious rites," Robinson said. "I'm not sure that we shouldn't stop doing marriages. We ought to do what churches do, which is bless those marriages. Until we start separating that out, I'm not sure that our people are going to separate them in our mind." Simmons echoed that, "It is the only way this issue is winnable over religious people. That was the only way the issue of slavery was winnable over religious people. History will show you that this country would still be practicing slavery had it been left up to religious people. "Instead, there were people who said, the law has to change. We wish you all felt it in your heart, but since you don't..." She encouraged dialogue but also practicality, "Don't waste a whole lot of time trying to convince people who you know are never going to change their mind and accept you." Gaddy said, "At one point people thought that we out to change the nation by changing one individual at a time. But it takes too long. The civil rights movement found its initial success because laws changed. And laws changed because there was political leadership willing to take a position to let the nation be all that it promised to be. "I am perfectly willing to live with people who are bigoted if the laws have changed enough to create a culture in which it is not acceptable to be bigoted," Gaddy said, "because we can live with that; we can't live with the idea that the laws have to support our bigotry." |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
"If the people really want to protect marriage in this country, they should be putting money into treatment centers for alcohol because that is what is undermining marriage."
Which begs the question, was it his alcohilism or his homosexuality that wrecked his first marriage?
And strangely, while this post speaks of "changing the laws, to change the culture", it also recommends removing the law from the institution of marriage.
Destroying the institution of marriage one couple at a time simply "takes too long"...
While we are talking about the history of religion in the Abolitionist movement, let's also not forget the history of religion in the pro-Slavery movement and the opposition to the Civil Rights movement. They were intent on using religion as a sword of bigotry. In fact, I imagine they would have even called it a religious liberty question if they were told they couldn't be bigoted since their bigotry were supported by religious belief.
Enshrining discrimination in the Constitution is something the Abolitionists would have been appalled at, and they would have considered it quite un-Christian.
History will show you that this country would still be practicing slavery had it been left up to religious people.
This is untrue. William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian and member of parliament successfully passed measures banning the slave trade in England, and innumerable Christians in the States fought for abolition.
The race card played by SSMers is the signal that they lack the confidence in the hyped-up intellectual value of their complaint against those with whom they'd disagree.
It is just the SSMer way to stomp their feet and declare victory for their own set of cherished confusions and prejudices. It is an impoverished approach to public discourse and to democratic change. The change they seek is generally undesired; so they must seek that change undemocratically and incivilly. While not all SSM proponents are working to tear down society, at root, the SSM project is the means by which to subvert society. Their weak analogies based on race are really just axiomatic declarations steeped in hostility toward the the very society of whom they'd unltimately seek approval. And yet it is a common refrain among SSMers that the government cannot legislate morality. Har-har-har.
>> "I am perfectly willing to live with people who are bigoted if the laws have changed enough to create a culture in which it is not acceptable to be bigoted," Gaddy said
But conveniently unwilling to acknowledge the irrational prejudices in that very statement.
Post a Comment
<< Home