about religion and the Supreme Court decision

[cellio]

I'd like to thank dglenn for bringing this to my attention:

"[...] as an Orthodox rabbi who does not officiate at same-sex marriages [...] My 'side' did not lose, because my side is never defined by any one position on a matter of ritual or liturgy, no matter how important that matter may be. My side, I hope, is God's side, and the God in whom I believe is infinite -- bigger and more complex than can be reduced to any single decision, or even any single tradition, for that matter." -- Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, I am an orthodox rabbi who doesn't perform gay marriages, but I celebrate today's Supreme Court decision, 2015-06-26.

I am heterosexual and religious. The Supreme Court decision to recognize a secular, legal status does not in any way harm my religious rights, nor anybody else's. Why should my gay friends be barred from the legal and financial protections, and obligations, that I and my husband have? (I do wish they'd declared "civil unions for everyone" and taken the term "marriage" completely out of the law, but I presume they can't do that on their own.)

No clergy with objections to gay marriage need officiate. That's proper; most rabbis won't perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews, Catholic priests won't remarry those who are divorced, and I presume there are other examples. The courts continue to uphold your religious rights.

Except for that one some claim of imposing their religious mores on others. That one took a little damage Friday.

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Except for that one some claim of imposing their religious mores on others. That one took a little damage Friday.

As well it should. Well and truly said.

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

Well, don't my heart just bleed green boogers over that one.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to imagine scenarios coming out of this decision that somebody could legitimately claim poses a restriction on their religious liberty. And they boil down to "We've been restricting gay access to X indirectly by saying you have to be legally married, and of course gays can't be legally married; now we have to restrict gay access to X explicitly, which will make us look bad and create a rift in our church." X could be
* church weddings
* visitation rights at religiously-run hospitals
* adoption through religiously-affiliated agencies
* admission of your children to religiously-run schools
* partner benefits for employees of a religious institution
* more examples cheerfully welcomed

These are all things on the vast, fuzzy border between religion and civil society: benefits often offered by religious institutions, but with legal ramifications. Some of them (like church weddings) will probably stay on the religious side of the fence, creating a rift in the congregation; others (like partner benefits) will probably be decided by the courts to be civil matters where excluding same-sex spouses is inadmissible. How will the religious institutions react to that?

For now, in many states they can simply fire or refuse to hire people they think might be same-sex-attracted. But how long before there are anti-discrimination laws against that, as the presence of more and more open same-sex couples pushes public opinion in favor of tolerance?

Oh, another intriguing example: what of unisex religious communities (monasteries and the like)? In the past, they've been able to exclude married people and (acknowledged) intra-community sex because they're unisex, and of course married people (or people having sex) can't be the same sex; now they have to face the possibility of two monks or nuns being legally married and legally, openly having sex. How does this affect community dynamics?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

They changed the definition of "marriage". Big deal -- they didn't change the meaning of nissuim, ishut, or ketubah, so what do I care what they did with an English word? Other then let my friends use it, too?

I mean, I DO care that they changed the meaning of "marriage" to include my friends, but "marriage" isn't a word that has to do with religion in the first place.