I saw this in the Newsroom the other day. It’s an open letter on defending marriage and defining marriage. It has been signed by several religious leaders as well as Bishop Burton. Strong words and insight how protecting marriage also protects religious freedom. Thought you might find it interesting.
MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans
Released January 12, 2012
Dear Friends:
The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.
As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage”—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.
Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts.
Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.
These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public
occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.
So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.” Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.
Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits.
For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex “wedding” there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.
In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.
Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.
May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.
Sincerely Yours:
Rev. Leith Anderson
President
National Association of Evangelicals
Johann Christoph Arnold
Senior Pastor
Bruderhof Communities
Randall A. Bach
President
Open Bible Churches
Dr. Gary M. Benedict
President
The Christian and Missionary Alliance
The Rev. John F. Bradosky
Bishop
North American Lutheran Church
Glenn Burris, Jr.
President
The Foursquare Church
Bishop H. David Burton
Presiding Bishop
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Dr. Ronald W. Carpenter, Sr.
Presiding Bishop
International Pentecostal Holiness Church
Rabbi Abba Cohen
Vice President for Federal Affairs
Washington Director
Agudath Israel of America
Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone
Bishop of Oakland
Chairman
USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage
Nathan J. Diament
Executive Director for Public Policy
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations
of America
Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
President
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Dr. Barrett Duke
Vice President for Public Policy and Research
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty
Commission
The Most Rev. Robert Duncan
Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America
Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh
Rev. Jim Eschenbrenner
Executive Pastor
General Council of Christian Union Churches
Dr. William J. Hamel
President
Evangelical Free Church of America
Rev. Dr. Ron Hamilton
Conference Minister
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference
Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison
President
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
John Hopler
Director
Great Commission Churches
Dr. Bill Hossler
President
Missionary Church, Inc.
Clyde M. Hughes
General Overseer
International Pentecostal Church of Christ
Rev. Kenneth D. Hunn
Executive Director
The Brethren Church
David W. Kendall
Bishop
Free Methodist Church USA
Dr. Richard Land
President
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty
Commission
Most Rev. William E. Lori
Bishop of Bridgeport
Chairman
USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for
Religious Liberty
Dr. Jo Anne Lyon
Chair Board of General Superintendents
The Wesleyan Church
James W. Murray
Executive Director
General Association of General Baptists
Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades
Bishop of Ft. Wayne - South Bend
Chairman
USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
Commissioner William A. Roberts
National Commander
The Salvation Army
Rocky Rocholl
President
Fellowship of Evangelical Churches
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
President
National Hispanic Christian
Leadership Conference
David T. Roller
Bishop
Free Methodist Church USA
Matthew A. Thomas
Bishop
Free Methodist Church USA
Dr. Joseph Tkach
President & Pastor General
Grace Communion International
Berten A. Waggoner
National Director
Vineyard USA
W. Phillip Whipple
Bishop
United Brethren in Christ Church, USA
Dr. John P. Williams, Jr.
Regional Director
Evangelical Friends Church, North America
David P. Wilson
General Secretary
Church of the Nazarene
Dr. George O. Wood
General Superintendent
Assemblies of God
My awesome uncle read this letter and replied to me:
"Very interesting. I’ve long wondered why these groups don’t outlaw divorce and really come after people who end their marriages. That is a much more serious threat to marriage, family relations, and the ability to raise children and it hits half of the marriages in the country."
To which I replied:
"Great point! Maybe at least as much effort ought to be invested in preserving the traditional marriages currently on the books. The difference in my mind is that not all divorces are wrong (most, but not all), but I believe all same sex “marriages” are. I believe that these “marriages” pose a greater legislative precedent threat than do divorces. And, I also think that there is a difference in level of wrongness between these two things. Both are horrible, but I think that I would be less concerned about my child’s soul if they were divorced rather than if they were homosexual. And I think that anything that society (and the courts) does to make homosexual behavior familiar, common, legitimate and acceptable, the more that behavior is encouraged as a viable option in people’s minds who otherwise might have made better choices.
18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;
19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.
20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.
21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name.
22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.
(Old Testament | Psalms 33:18 - 22)
Hope On!
