Apparently Pelosi is against a law allowing chaplins to refuse to wed gay service members if it is against their religion... Pelosi calls chaplain conscience clause a 'fraud'
They have changed the definition of a word, marriage was a sacred covenant between a man and a woman and now it is the legal binding of anyone that wants. So? The genie is out of the bottle. I don't like the deviant agenda being pushed on us but it has been and it is now essentially, a done deal. Alternate "Life-styles" are in vogue. Don't look back or you will turn into a pillar of salt.
I know it's not a particularly popular opinion to put before conservatives, but I am of the belief that loving relationships are hard to come by in this world so when people are lucky enough to find that person with whom they have that bond, regardless of the gender, they should have the right to the pursuit of that happiness. I guess I have always lived an "alternate" lifestyle, albeit heterosexual, but alternate nonetheless. There was a time when it was considered deviant to be an unmarried female but we got over that and the world didn't end.
Just another right wing salvo in the culture wars The proposition of the Republican sponsored "conscience clause" relating to military chaplains, is but another wedge issue to attack the Democrats with, in the culture wars between right wing /conservatives and left wing / progressives. Perhaps there is an argument to appoint a number of secular chaplains for whom religious objections to ministering to gay and lesbian soldiers would be a non issue. Naturally they would be afforded the protection of the conscience clause to protect them from being compelled to provide services that would be contrary to their conscience as atheists / secular humanists when ministering to theistic soldiers. It has been estimated that at least some 20% of the military are (Segal, David R. and Mady Weschler Segal, ―America’s Military Population,‖ Population Reference Bureau, Vol. 59, No. 4., December 2004. ) are identified as atheists or as having no religious affiliation. A reasonable approach to the issue might be to vary the present establishment of chaplains to represent the proportion of non religious military personnel as opposed to religious military personnel. Non religious chaplains would most likely not find themselves in conflict with ministering to the needs of gay and lesbian soldiers in relation to religious doctrine and dogma. Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers Religious discrimination in the military | Secular Coalition for America http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all Ending Discrimination Against the Nonreligious in the Military BBC News - Military chaplain funding queried by secular group
My issue is with the word Marriage... to me that is a religious term used in a secular sense. to me a marriage is held in a church and a civil union is held any where else... all marriages should be in agreement with tenents of the church in which they are held... any civil union should be within the laws of the state in which they are held.... but a religious body should not have to sanctify any relationship which an anthema to their beliefs... YMMV
The use of the religious definition of "marriage" precludes "marriage" by any other legal officiate such as a Justice of the Peace, Judge, etc. In that case, a good portion of the heterosexual couples who believe themselves to be married are actually not, a sobering thought. Some may be pleased about this however.
I use the general term Marriage to mean any religious wedding ceremony regardless of specific doctrine... hence a jewish wedding simply meets the requirement of the jewish faith, a muslim wedding meats the needs of their members, a catholic marriage meets the needs of the catholic... anything outside of a wedding ceremony sponsered by a religious faith (regardless of creed) is a civil union and meets the legal requirement of the goverment... if not the requirements of any faith...
I agree. My only disagreement is accepting only a religious connotation to "marriage." Historically, marriage has had more to do with property rights than a religious covenant between two individuals and one God. That may be the ultimate marriage but far from reality, unfortunately
Exactly, Ghrit.... The PC Crowd needs a new Term, to use (Civil Union) because the term (Marriage) predates Recorded History, and as such Predates Governments, and goes back to Tribal Rituals, which were Religious in nature, and overseen by the Spiritual Leader in the Tribes, NOT the Political Leader, when both were part of that Tribes hierarchy. ..... Anthropology 201.....
Marriage is the domain of the church and government has no business involved in it. What any two people want to do together is their business I agree. If the state wants to grant spousal benefits to same sex partners, that's a state issue, to be voted on by the people. If a "church" wants to perform ceremonies for gays, that's their business. But to force anyone, any organization to violate their beliefs for some PC agenda is wrong. If my church believes the biblical pronouncement that homosexuality is "an abomination to the Lord" and we refuse to sanction it, that is our right. Go somewhere else. There are "churches" out there who don't believe the literal translation of scripture and who will marry anyone who walks in the door. That is their right also. Free will, it is the founding principle of Christianity. The government has no place in my home, my bedroom, or my church.
