The New York Times has once again published a story on religious views on marriage equality without a single mainstream or progressive religious voice quoted. Yesterday's NY Times reported that "50 prominent religous leaders" have endorsed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same sex marriage.
What the article ignored in its entirety is the growing movement among religious leaders and religious denominations in support of marriage equality. They didn't tell their readers that several religious denominations have endorsed marriage equality, including the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Association, or that nearly a dozen denominations allow their clergy to bless marriages or union ceremonies for committed couples. They didn't report that more than 500 prominent religious leaders have endorsed the "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Marriage Equality" that says in part that all persons have the right to lead lives that express love, justice, commitment, and pleasure, including but not limited to civil and religious marriage.
The Religious Institute calls on religious leaders to promote good marriages and family values without restrictions based on the sexual orientation of the partners. Shame on those religious leaders who seek to institute their particular narrow religious point of view into the U.S. Constitution.
If you are a religious leader or the staff of a religious institution, please endorse the "Open Letter." Or pass this on to your clergy person. And write your Senator to say that as a person of faith you oppose this effort. Visit our Action Center.
Just because the New York Times doesn't remember to quote us, we don't have to be silenced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A couple of thoughts. On the question whether gays should be entitled to religious marriage: I would think that is entirely up to each religion. If so, there really is no theory of entitlement at play. Civil unions - those recognized by the state - are another matter entirely. I personally think states ought to move in the direction of allowing them.
On the question whether the few are attempting to insinuate (aka institute) their narrow view of marriage into the constitution: the constitution does not now address this question. It may well be you who is doing the insinuating, for it is you who would (presumably) want the constitution to enshrine gay marriage. And surely it does not. Neither the equal protection clause, nor the due process clause (as it relates to liberty), nor any other constitutional provision gets you there, despite what the revisionists claim. The relief you seek ought to come, if at all, from state law.
Post a Comment