Republicans seek to quash religious freedom

[NCBirdfan]

If a consenting couple of adults asks for a religious leader to perform a marriage ceremony and that is something the religious leader finds acceptable and in accordance with normal practices of that religion, then I believe it could be a violation of their religious freedom if some 3rd party stepped in and denied them the freedom to have that religious ceremony. How could that possibly be looked at as being anything but a violation of religious freedom - unless you are imposing on them some other religion which does not permit consensual adult homosexual marriage? It seems like religious tyranny to me.

I agree with your post. I am a Christian and I have my beliefs. That does not mean that I have the right, under the Constitution or the law to impose my beliefs on others. My belief is that marriage is between a man and woman, but that still does not give me the right to violate someone else's right to define marriage a different way - nor does it directly hurt my religion for someone outside of it to do so.

[SalisburySage]

Pardon me for pointing it out, but aren't you the very epitome of a self-sabotaging Republican ?

No. For one thing I m not a Republican.

[Terry K]

Because people are often trying to push their religious beliefs against same-sex marriage on other people. Furthermore, some same-sex couples get married in religious ceremonies. Why is it OK to trample their religious freedom?

For the same reason one cannot marry multiple wives, close relatives, inanimate objects, animals etc.....are these prohibitions against religious freedoms or the enforcement of societal norms?

[Baltimatt]

Uhh, Terry. It's 2012. Same-sex couples can marry in six states plus the District of Columbia. It's perfectly legal. A few other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

[Baltimatt]

I remember when societal norms included separate Help Wanted ads for men and women in the newspapers, prohibitions on interracial marriage, legally mandated racial segregation.

[Terry K]

Uhh, Terry. It's 2012. Same-sex couples can marry in six states plus the District of Columbia. It's perfectly legal. A few other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

You've proved my point....."perfectly legal" is not the same as religious freedom, is it? Don't try and equate SS marriage to religious freedom.

[Baltimatt]

Terry

You are not making any sense.

[Fang]

Appropriations bill would ban same-sex marriages on military bases



Then why are you trying to make members of our military give up their religious beliefs, Rep. Akin? What do you have against religious freedom?

This is the most irresponsible post I've seen on here. Baltimatt has posted a lie and since he's a moderator he can get away with it. It's a shame.

I'm calling you out Matt. You're a liar. Republicans DON'T seek to quash religious freedom. This is nothing more than a same sex marriage issue and in case you haven't noticed, many states both Democract and Republican have voted down gays marrying.

[Sprightly]

Appropriations bill would ban same-sex marriages on military bases



Then why are you trying to make members of our military give up their religious beliefs, Rep. Akin? What do you have against religious freedom?

I am surprised that you would lie in the title of your thread.

[Baltimatt]

Fang--

How is it a lie? Republicans want to ban same-sex marriage ceremonies on military bases. They're claiming it's a religious freedom issue, when they are the ones trying to suppress the freedom of those whose religions (or lack thereof) have no problem with same-sex marriages.

[Baltimatt]

How is it a lie, sprightly?

[Sprightly]

How is it a lie, sprightly?

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

1/25/2012--Introduced.

Military Religious Freedom Protection Act - Requires the sincerely held religious or moral beliefs of a member of the Armed Forces concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality to be accommodated and not the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment (adverse actions). Prohibits a military chaplain from being directed, ordered, or required to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function (ceremony) that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs (beliefs) of the chaplain or the chaplain's faith group. Prohibits the refusal of a chaplain to perform a ceremony that is contrary to such beliefs from being the basis of any adverse actions. Requires the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations setting forth guidance to implement such requirements and prohibitions. Prohibits a military installation or other property owned, rented, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense (DOD) from being used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3828

Has the federal governent legalized same-sex marriage?

[veritas]

Short of some Federal law or SC decision instituting same sex marriage, there is no obligation for the military to allow it. Saying it has violated some religious belief is a clever end run but not one likely to succeed. If someone is claiming a restriction of their religious rights, they should be asked what religion they are talking about. None that I know of endorses gay marriage.

[Baltimatt]

The federal government doesn't "legalize" marriage; it only recognizes it. While it does not recognize such marriages, does that mean it should bar such marriages on federal or military property in places where they are legal?

Furthermore, I want to call out those who think the only way to preserve their religious freedom is to totally disregard the religious freedom of those who think differently.

[bullmikey]

Then why are you trying to make members of our military give up their religious beliefs, Rep. Akin? What do you have against religious freedom?

It's the thing about military bases being federal property, Matt. Allowing gays to serve openly doesn't change the federal definition of marriage. IMHO, such weddings wouldn't be possible in a military chapel or anywhere else on a military base (I'm not even sure the armed forces would recognize gay marriages performed in the state where they are legal) until there is federal recognition of gay marriage.

That being said, there’s really no need for this bill. It’s seeking to ban what’s not possible under current federal laws. So I suspect it’s just more anti-gay paranoia being waved about like a flag to attract a certain class of voter.

And though the military does often require chaplains to do funny things – in Vietnam I once saw a rabbi perform Sunday services for a bunch of Catholics and Protestants - it couldn’t compel a Catholic priest to marry anyone if such a marriage conflicted with Church doctrine.

[reg_indy]

By who ?

An activist Executive, Court, or Legislatuire ? Do you care, as long as it's in your favor ?

It will never be shot down by the People. At least, not in my lifetime.

By all means, keep the Grandstanding, 'lets score some base points' legislative acts coming.......

[kudzu]

I'm quite sure it will take legal action. You do realize of course that "the people" didn't vote to create DOMA and do not need to vote to trash it, right?

Oh, absolutely. My point/question was if you cared at all about the "how" it's accomplished, as long as it came out in your favor.

[kudzu]

The federal government doesn't "legalize" marriage; it only recognizes it. While it does not recognize such marriages, does that mean it should bar such marriages on federal or military property in places where they are legal?

Now wait a minute matt, you can't have it both ways.

If the federal government only recognizes marriage (as opposed to making them legal/illegal) then so do the states.

[BiggSeth]

Why try and pretend that same sex marriage is a religious freedom issue....no one has asked our military to give up their religious beliefs......same sex marriage is a sexual preference issue having nothing to do with religion.

according to some on this site 'gay' is a religion AND a race, as they keep trying to justify their nonsense with comaprisons to religious groups not wanting to provide contraception AND jim crow laws....

What's next....'gay' is a species?

[Baltimatt]

according to some on this site 'gay' is a religion AND a race,

According to whom? Nobody.