NY Times shut out progressive religious voices in article about constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage
SUMMARY: In an article about a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick, while detailing the support of many religious conservatives for the amendment, ignored significant support for same-sex marriage among other religious groups.
In an April 23 article about a petition signed by 50 prominent religious leaders in support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick, while detailing the support of many religious conservatives for the amendment, ignored significant support for same-sex marriage among other religious groups. For example, more than 500 religious leaders have endorsed an open letter on marriage equality.
In the article "A Religious Push Against Gay Unions," Kirkpatrick noted that "seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops," as well as "many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" support the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The article also stated:
Organizers said the petition had brought together cardinals from both the left and right sides of the United States bishops' conference, including the liberal Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles and the conservative Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, as well as Cardinals Edward M. Egan of New York, Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, William H. Keeler of Baltimore and Sean Patrick O'Malley of Boston.
But the article did not mention the numerous religious denominations, organizations, and clergy who have expressed support for same-sex marriage.
For example, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing sponsored "An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Marriage Equality," which cited "strong civil liberties arguments for ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage." The letter, with over 500 endorsements from religious leaders -- 10 times the support for the petition against same-sex marriage mentioned in the Times article -- noted the following religious support for same-sex marriage. From "An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Marriage Equality":
- Several religious denominations have endorsed their clergy performing commitment or union ceremonies for same sex couples. These include the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform Judaism), the Ecumenical Catholic Church, Ohalah, Alliance for Jewish Renewal, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.
- The United Church of Christ, the American Baptist Churches, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and various Quaker groups leave the decision to perform same sex unions to their clergy, congregations, or local governing bodies. The Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America allow their clergy to bless same sex unions, if their clergy do not call them marriage.
- Several denominations have endorsed the rights of same sex couples to legally marry and/or opposed federal and state efforts to deny marriage equality.
- In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association passed a resolution in support of marriage equality. The same year, the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution supporting the "right of gay and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil marriage." The Executive Council of the United Church of Christ in April 2004 affirmed "equal rights for all couples who seek to have their relationships recognized by the state." Other religious organizations that either support civil marriage for same sex couples and/or who are on record opposing the denial of equal rights to same sex couples include the American Friends Service Committee, Dignity USA, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Interfaith Working Group, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Churches.
- More than 2250 religious leaders have endorsed the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, which calls for full inclusion of sexual minorities, including their ordination and performance of same sex unions.
- More than 4000 religious leaders have endorsed the marriage resolution sponsored by Freedom to Marry.
The Coalition Against Discrimination in the Constitution, a group dedicated to "organiz[ing] clergy who strongly oppose any attempt to write discrimination into the United States Constitution" through its Faith for Fairness website, also cited support from more than 100 national organizations, "including many national religious groups." Groups listed as supporters include: Alliance of Baptists, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Dignity USA, Disciples of Christ Church, Episcopal Church USA, and many others.
Hundreds of churches and religious congregations also perform holy unions and often bless same-sex weddings that are performed in jurisdictions where such marriages are legal.
Religion has never been a champion favoring human rights to all humans. Whether female, child, poor, black, and now homosexual, you have to be segregated from specific institutions and opportunities.
why there are laws that should unconditionally be independent from any church dogma preaching different treatments based on "I think/believe" or "my book tells me".
because there are many, many religous institutions that are NOT blinded by bigotry and openly endorse peoples' right to marry...
Have there been laws based on what cardinals etc dictate?
"Kirkpatrick noted that "seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops," as well as "many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" support the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. "
government should get out of the "marrying" business altogether. marriage is and should be strictly a religious term used in churches and by the clergy as they see fit for their own parishioners and members. people can celebrate a "marriage ceremony" as they also see fit within their family and culture, the government should grant legal civil unions to consenting adults based on local and state laws governing such unions.
you again. I agreed with you on some points last time, lets see whats here.
marry every two consenting adults by a government official, instead of being dependent on potential biases of a priest or pastor?
my point is that the government and society as a whole has a vested interest in promoting committed relationships between two consenting, legal adults. the fact that it is two men or two women is irrelevant and should also be encouraged, not illegal. if the term marriage is one many people find sacred and not worth tampering with, fine. take it out of the public arena and let the churches or religious institutions use that term for whomever they see fit. govt. needn't use it, they should be granting civil unions, not marrying anybody.
I seem to agree again here. However, when people have a civil union instead of being married, they are often not seen as having a 'full relationship'. How do you think you can get a turn-around in that thinking. And what about the 'we-they' distinction as: we are married and therefore christian (or anything else) whereas you are secular because you have a civil union.
The connotation 'marriage' adds in my opinion to the relation I have with my wife. I am wondering whether I would feel the same when we had a civil union. I think I would have to say my life-long: she is my partner or girlfriend or special some-one instead of she is my wife and I her husband. Civil union gives me the feeling of something less stable, even though that will not be the case.
i believe we probably will never see because spineless politicians wouldn't never propose anything like it. nevertheless, in my mind it is the way to go. it would take time culturally to see it worked out, but legally it could be done as soon as the law is enacted. perhaps some members of society would be uncomfortable, hence the political uneasiness, but eventually it may be viewed the same. your church or religious institution could perform as elaborate a marriage ceremony as you'd like, but it would be merely recognized by them. only the govt. would recognize civil unions, nothing would change legally really. committed and stable relationships are good for society. families are good for society. why some religious leaders are so fearful of that escapes me.
"committed and stable relationships are good for society. families are good for society. why some religious leaders are so fearful of that escapes me."
I totally agree.
why only two?
islam and mormonism allow multiples
the first and last sentences of your post. Aren't they contradictory?
Last time I checked the constitution requires separation of church and state. The entire reason that religious institutions are tax exempt are two fold - first, most churches are involved in charitable work - second, taxing them gives them the right to political representation - as the constitution requires that separation, that would be "taxation without representation" the basic complaint of our founding fathers. So, why do religious organizations feel they have ANY right to be a part of this debate? As far as I'm concerned, call it a civil union, a marriage, a joining, whatever the hell you want to call it - I don't really care - marriage, as we know it, is a legal institution, not just a religious one - what you call it is purely semantics. Either way, discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, and all citizens in this country are entitled to the same rights IMHO. Religious leaders can just keep their noses out of it. Finally - the Constitution has never been used to take rights away in over 200 years - using it for that purpose now would be a prime example of how this administration is destroying what this country stands for.
that was exactly what I meant in my post. Of course, they could and should have an opinion, but to argue that there should be an amentment because an x-amount of bishops and the like would like it is in this republic no argument at all. At least, not yet.
are debating because they and ther flocks vote and are citizens.
or does your freedom from religion strip me of my rights for believing in something
you do still have the right to believe in whatever you want. (I'm not accusing you of believing one way or the other on the issue at hand). Those who believe that gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God (purposely capitalized because God doesn't care too much about punctuation, but really obsesses over lower case proper nouns) have every right to NOT get married to a person of the same gender. Should they also decree the actions of those who don't believe the same? Not according to the 200 some-odd year old documents which govern this country.
And don't kid yourself. Our society has plenty of historical examples of restrictive laws made by the political influence of the various churches. The "blue laws" in the south, anyone? Alcohol laws in Utah? The teaching of "Intelligent Design" in Kansas? Oh yes, brilliant successes in human logic, every one.
So by all means, observe your faith. Live your life according to the instructions of the supreme being of your choice. Just don't force me to waste my life observing YOUR religion.
There is something about that combination of words that is just wierd.
I myself AM a religious progressive. I also know a whole slew of them. Rightwingnuts just WISH it were true there were no religious progressives so they perpetuate this slur. Ignorance on parade. What I think is weird is the way some of you wingnuts are so incredibly proud of your ignorance. THAT IS WEIRD
The recent United Church of Christ campaign has the right idea. The Religious Right is always the focus of the major media outlets because the RR whimpers and whines and squeals and boo-hoos and jumps-up-and-down until they get airtime, every single time they want attention, be it gay marriage or who the current Baptist Bigwig or Bishop Bigshot wants you to vote for. You have to attack media with an aggressive method; the news networks and big newspapers are usually just too freakin' lazy to search out quieter or more humble religious messages.
Progressive churches need to work together if they ever intend to have any hope of a similar effect: for example, they should come togther and buy a full page add in the NYT tomorrow that presents their view and pointedly asks WHY they weren't included in the Times article. IN GREAT BIG PRINT. Much of the media is just plain lazy and stupid when it comes to religion, but they're also desperately afraid of pissing off churches as religion also makes 'em really jumpy. The last thing they want to be known as is religious bigots. But that's precisely the terminology that has to be used, and should be used often, as media outlets like the NYT and CNN ("ladies and gentleman, here's Jerry Falwell's 80,345 appearance on the Wolf Blitzer Show") specifically ARE religious bigots if they're always favoring one religious viewpoint (the Right's) over others.
You just have to make it clear that you're GOING to be pissed off and that you're going to be very loud about it, and its a whole heavenly hell of a lot more certain that the next time they decide to write about these subjects, they'll include religious voices other than just the Religious Right usual suspects who've stomped, squawked and show-bizzed their way into every reporters' Rolodex.