Gay Marriage as a Relig Right: Reamg the Legal Debate over Gay Marriage the Uned Stat on JSTOR

Contents:

• GAY MARRIAGE, RELIGN AND THE COURT
• GAY MARRIAGE: PROS, CONS, AND WHERE BOTH PARTI STAND
• GAY MARRIAGE: DEBATG THE ETHICS, RELIGN, AND CULTURE ANALYTIL ANALYTIL ESSAY

GAY MARRIAGE, RELIGN AND THE COURT

Letters|Gay Marriage, Relign and the Court ADVERTISEMENTlettersRears take issue wh an opn wrten by Jtice Clarence Thomas and joed by Jtice Samuel Drago for The New York TimTo the Edor:Re “Thomas and Alo Raise Doubts on Same-Sex Marriage Rulg” (news article, Oct. 6):Whout a ht of irony, Jtice Clarence Thomas, addrsg gay marriage an opn joed by Jtice Samuel Alo, wrote that “those wh scerely held relig beliefs ncerng marriage will fd creasgly difficult to participate society. People this untry every area of life om marriage equaly to adoptn to health re ncern that those who oppose gay marriage will be perceived as bigots whout acknowledgment of the history of adly bias agast those the L.

Please don’t abandon the rt of GordonSan FrancisA versn of this article appears prt on, Sectn A, Page 24 of the New York edn wh the headle: Gay Marriage, Relign and the Supreme Court. The Natnal Relig Learship Roundtable, which supported the multi-fah event on the steps of the San Francis Cy Hall scribed above, is nvened by the Natnal Gay and Lbian Task Force.

Equal Employment Opportuny Commissn, se the movement for same-sex marriage an opportuny “to make the se for” the “normative moral equivalence” of “gay and heterosexual sex”—an argument, Profsor Feldblum observ, “that is hardly ever heard polil circl. Rutgers Law Profsor Carlos Ball believ that the stggle for “societal acceptance” of same-sex relatnships entails a “ontal attack” on the “eply held views of many Amerins regardg the (im)moraly of homosexualy.

GAY MARRIAGE: PROS, CONS, AND WHERE BOTH PARTI STAND

[30] The thors, who clu Profsors Feldblum and Ball, believe that “current advot for gay rights are not really engagg their opponents unls they are engaged wh the moral nature of their opponents’ views and arguments. Supporters of same-sex marriage ntend that gay and lbian upl should be treated no differently than their heterosexual unterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. They pot out, for stance, that homosexual upl who have been together for years often fd themselv whout the basic rights and privileg that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual upl who legally marry — om the sharg of health and pensn benefs to hospal visatn rights.

Allowg gay and lbian upl to wed, they argue, will radilly refe marriage and further weaken at a time when the stutn is already ep trouble due to high divorce rat and the signifint number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, they predict, givg gay upl the right to marry will ultimately lead to grantg people polygamo and other nontradnal relatnships the right to marry as well. The Catholic Church and evangelil Christian groups have played a leadg role public opposn to gay marriage, while male Prottant church and other relig groups wrtle wh whether to orda gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremoni.

GAY MARRIAGE: DEBATG THE ETHICS, RELIGN, AND CULTURE ANALYTIL ANALYTIL ESSAY

Ined, the ordatn and marriage of gay persons has been a growg wedge between the socially liberal and nservative wgs of the Epispal and Prbyterian church, leadg some nservative ngregatns and even whole dc to break away om their natnal church.