Thursday, January 06, 2011

This one's a "keeper"

Every once in awhile you read something that clearly and concisely says something that you wish you'd said so clearly and concisely the dozens of times you've tried to say the same thing and not ended up with anything nearly so clear and concise.

In this case, it's Katherine Ragsdale's rebuttal to the "marriage equality threatens the sanctity of marriage and violates the religious liberty of those in favor of marriage discrimination" argument. It's what we call "a keeper" -- and here it is:
Let's be clear. The fact that the State authorizes a marriage in no way compels any Church to perform or recognize it. As priests, we are entitled to refuse to perform any marriage for any reason. Roman Catholics routinely demonstrate this liberty when they refuse to perform marriages of divorced persons, even though the State allows them to do so. Similarly, they refuse to recognize marriages of non-Roman Catholics even though the State has issued a license. Political arguments against states allowing same-sex marriages and the federal government recognizing these marriages that claim it would violate the “sanctity” of marriage and force churches to do something contrary to their teaching or their conscience, are blatantly misleading and dishonest. Marriage equality merely guarantees equality under the law to all citizens; it does not compel churches to do anything.
And let the people say:

(And if "the people" want to read the rest of Katherine's reflection on her recent marriage, they should click here.)

1 comment:

IT said...

Thanks for this--I've riffed off it a bit over at FoJ. I really, REALLY think the religious freedom argument needs to be firmly dealt with. The ONLY people whose religious freedom is in any way affected are those who are DENIED the right to marry by the RC and LDS and etc. churches. They are directly attacking the religious freedom of denominations who do not agree.

My marriage had no effect on any Roman Catholic.

End of story.