|
Today was a good day for me, because I had an insight while listening to AAR this morning when someone was discussing this issue.
I had been wondering how you have a comeback to churches who say that it is okay for them to be proactive on this issue because they define it as a moral issue, not a political one, and, as such, i.e. a moral issue, it falls within the religious milieu, not a political one, hence they can't be taxed. It's been concerning me how to respond to this; I couldn't think of a response that seemed to work until listening to AAR this a.m.
Advocating against Gay Marriage becomes a POLITICAL issue, NOT a moral one, the moment they make references to or organize outside of their own churches, outside of their own belief system. No one is forcing churches who object to Gay Marriage to sanctify Gay Marriages. They are not required to do anything one way or another about Gay Marriage; their rights are not affected by Gay Rights, so within their own churches they have no problem. Where they violate the law about separation of church and state, where they violate the tax code benefits that they get for being non-political, is when they try to force other churches, some of whom DO sanctify Gay Marriage, when they try to make other people, people who are NOT members of their church, agree with them against Gays' Civil Right to Marry. This answers my question about when/how does it cease being a moral issue (and, thus, appropriately a religious concern whether I agree with them or not), when does it cease to be a moral issue and become a political one: when they try to influence the thoughts and actions of those who are not members of their church.
|