The free and rational exercise of religion.

ardenashley:

karion:

Washington State has a marriage equality measure on the ballot next month. While I ABSOLUTELY ABHOR the idea of voting on civil rights, I desperately hope Washington state becomes the first state to approve same sex marriage by popular vote.

So with that in mind, here is a letter from the President of Seattle Prep, a Jesuit high school in Seattle. Keep in mind that Jesuit is a Roman Catholic Order, and witness what rational faith looks like:

I am committed to conservatism: I am more conservative on social issues than is the norm in the Pacific Northwest. I believe interpretations of our Constitution should preserve the original intent of our Founding Fathers. And my worldview is grounded in Catholic faith tradition.

It is for these reasons that I support Washington’s gay marriage law. Although gay marriage is usually perceived as a liberal position, I actually see this law as being consistent with conservatism, especially when viewed within its root: “to save, guard, protect.”

First, we need laws and social structures that provide for clarity, conserve order and promote the common good. The gay marriage law does all of these things by clearly establishing property rights, providing a framework for important life decisions like health care, and regulating how legal relationships are both formed and dissolved. It fosters a more stable society.

Second, the gay marriage law is consistent with basic Constitutional rights. The law clearly and repeatedly states that religious practices are not regulated, thus safeguarding the free exercise of religion. It also toes the bright line between another First Amendment protection, separation of Church and State. Finally, because the gay marriage law extends rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples to homosexual couples, it provides for equal protection under the law. (That is one reason why characterization of the union as marriage is important; doing so unambiguously establishes equal standing in the eyes of the law.)

Third, I do not agree with those who believe that the gay marriage law is inconsistent with Catholic faith tradition. It is true that direct support for gay marriage cannot be found in Scripture and early Church history; both are silent on the question. But it’s also true that taking passages out of context to oppose gay marriage violates the Catholic approach to understanding Scripture. We should be leery of the literalist interpretation of Scripture advocated by fundamentalists. For example, yes, Leviticus does say that males who have sex with each other should be put to death (Lv. 20:13). But it also says that those who curse mom or dad should be killed too (Lv. 20:9). Who then should live?

………………

[T]The crux of the issue is a fundamentally different understanding between the Church hierarchy and most lay Catholics regarding the basic purpose of marriage. The bishops clearly and repeatedly state that the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction. And, if this basic premise is accepted, it does logically follow that there is no place for gay marriage for obvious biological reasons.

But reproduction is not the primary purpose of marriage. It perhaps was during the time of ancient Israel when high infant mortality rates and threats to tribal existence demanded multiple births. We, however, do not live in that time. The primary purpose of marriage today is found in the Genesis creation stories, especially the second one: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” (Gn. 2:24)

For those more inclined to divining truth from modern day mythology than Scripture, I suggest watching the first 10 minutes of the Pixar film, Up. A couple that desires children experiences deep loss and sadness when they find out that they cannot conceive. But does that make their marriage any less of a marriage? When a couple practices birth control (natural of course) while having sex, are they less married at those times than when sperm is free to encounter egg? And are married couples who choose to not have children really not married couples after all?

The answer to these questions is, of course, a resounding “no.” That’s because the primary purpose of marriage is unitive, not procreative. It is the union that makes the marriage sacramental. Marriage, in and of itself and regardless of the presence of children, is a path to God.

Emphasis in original.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.