*swoon*

[jazzfish]

Dr rivka FTW. Twice, even.

I think it's entirely reasonable for religious organizations to be able to declare that gay marriage isn't marriage by their definition - that they won't perform those marriages in their churches, and won't recognize those couples as being married in the eyes of the church. I don't agree with that point of view, but I consider it to be up to the members of those denominations.

What is not reasonable, in my mind, is for religious denominations to say that it would somehow be injurious to their faith if my friends Charles and Glen, who have been together for nearly thirty years, could share health benefits and have widowers' rights to each other's Social Security benefits. When you claim that your religious rights are infringed upon unless rights are withheld from other people, that's where you've lost me.

Comments

[meghatronn.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post, this is very well-worded.

What helps me to separate the church/state issues of gay marriage is that the crucial issue of what is considered morally wrong with gay marriage (at least in my Catholic tradition) is sex. Health benefits and Social Security, etc. don't have anything to do with whether Glenn or me or anyone else share a bed at the end of the day.

Unfortunately, our country, in many ways, is coming apart in terms of the way family takes care of each other. So we have had to create new family systems in order to afford to live. And while morally I cannot support homosexual sex, I definitely support giving Power of Attorney and health insurance to people that you love and trust--whether or not you're in a legally committed relationship.