I've long been interested in Rebecca Voelkel's point (pdf) that the way to win hearts and minds on the same-sex (civil) marriage question is to include religious people in the effort. (She said this to me in an interview a couple years ago.) Gene Robinson agrees.
It's a provocative observation, among other reasons because it troubles the basic assumption shared by many, including me--namely, that the reason the same-sex marriage conversation is so difficult in this country, or at least one of the main ones, is that marriage is apparently immune to the separation of church and state in an unparalleled way.
Still, I'm with Mark on this one: it seems pretty clear that the key to winning civil marriage equality for same-sex couples is not to undo church people's objections so much as to take seriously the ones that deserve to be taken seriously: the ones about religious freedom.
Or rather, SOME of the ones about religious freedom. Others are basically crap. See this great Century article by Thomas Berg for more on that distinction, and on how to craft better policy that protects EVERYBODY's rights.
The prison writings of Alexei Navalny
19 hours ago
Bergs policy suggestion seems very biased against churches in rural communities.
ReplyDeleteIts pretty clear Berg would not be protecting the religous freedom of the church you grew up in for instance. I'm sure however that church would rather die (or better put be killed) before performing these ceremonies.
In your simlar article on theolog you seem to forget that liberals intent on moving their agenda forward are always looking to be discriminated against. Don't for a second think they won't be doing the same to kill churches.
I'm sure you wouldn't be so careless with the religous freedoms you deem worthy of protection.