Quote:
Originally posted by Lord MJ
The point about not letting religious convictions influencing political decisions.
Many people are of the persuasion that the bible says this action is a sin, therefore it should be made illegal.
This is a violation of people's individual rights because nobody should be forced to obey Christian values.
Part of living in a free society is the fact that one group with a set of beliefs must learn to tolerate the behavior of another group with a different set of beliefs regardless of whether that behavior is in line with group # 1's set of beliefs.
I'm a Christian, but because of what I just mentioned above I could never support banning Gay marriage. In fact if it were banned, I would advocate Gays actively ignoring the bans.
|
MJ, the law is only indirectly following religious viewpoints and this is why it is permissible - b/c judges can consider policy in creating case law and policy is often founded on morality; morality is largely dictated by the major religion in any area. I explain this in my previous email. So when the law is saying that gay marriage should not be allowed, it is partly based on moral policy - not religious beliefs (although they are closely related). This is why I said that there is no true separation of religion and law - however, law is not a *direct* reflection of any religion's tenet; it's more indirect.
Further, anti-homosexuality tenets (I believe) are found in other religions as well (not just Christian sources) so, again, the law could not really adopt the Christian way of life if it wanted to b/c there are a number of other major religions in this country whose advocates would see to it that Christians are not getting a strong hold on the law, to the exclusion of their respective religion.
So you don't have to disagree with bans on gay marriages just b/c you think that it's a result of Christian influence in the law b/c it isn't directly and could never be.
SC