RELIGIOUS VIEWS HAVE A PLACE IN SSM DEBATE: David Benkof in the San Francisco Chronicle

[Eve notes that this is a longer version of a post made here.]

Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Court narrowly held that the state must grant marriages to same-sex couples, defenders of the Goodridge vs. Massachusetts decision have argued that its impact is limited to civic marriage, and thus religious defenders of the traditional definition of marriage have nothing to fear and should get out of the way.
This reasoning is not only flawed, it insults the millions of Americans whose traditional faiths call on us to defend marriage as a central
institution in society defined as a union between a man and a woman.

The idea that people's religious beliefs should not influence their stances on our nation's legal institutions goes against American tradition. For example, many outspoken advocates for the abolition of slavery were members of Protestant churches. A century later, the Quakers played a key role in coordinating conscientious objection to the Vietnam War. And Martin Luther King boldly quoted the Book of Isaiah in his "I Have a
Dream" speech, calling on our leaders to live up to the highest expression of our founders' beliefs.

more
posted by Eve at 3:42 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home