Letzter Beitrag von 4 Beiträgen. |
Seite erstellt am 4.5.24 um 11:46 Uhr |
Verfasser: Sappho Datum: Dienstag, den 8. Februar 2011, um 0:42 Uhr Betrifft: Einige Kommentare
Aus einem amerikanischen Forum ehemaliger Mormonen:
Aussage 1:
While I dont agree with the morg (and many other religious institutions) views of gays as unnatural & immoral, I do believe in religious freedom for all. I think the only way to solve this marriage issue and have it be fair for everyone is for the govt to get out of marriage altogether. Everyone has to get a govt sanctioned civil union that can be done only by a govt employee.
Religions would no longer have authority to perform legally recognized ceremonies. However, those wishing to have a "marriage" recognized by their religion can have an additional religious ceremony separate from the civil legal ceremony. People already married when the law change took effect would be grandfathered in, of course. Would that make everything "perfect?" No, probably not, but at the moment its the most just and fair solution for all sides that I can think of. (Hervorhebung von mir).Aussage 2:
Even today, the Mormon church discriminates against women, but such discrimination outside of religion is prevented by law. Religions want to maintain their special privilege of not being required to conform to the laws that apply to the rest of us. (Hervorhebung von mir)
Aussage 3:
The problem with Oaks argument is that nobody is requiring churches to perform marriages of gays. Mormons are preventing gay marriages outside of churches. If Mormons dont want to marry blacks and whites, they dont have to, but they certainly houldnt be preventing blacks and whites, under force of law, from getting married in a civil ceremony outside the Mormon church. Churches want to maintain their privilege, and they dontt like it that laws should apply to them too. (Hervorhebung von mir)
Drei Aussagen, die den Kern des Problems der Ansprache von Oaks beschreiben. Darauf möchte ich gerne hinweisen.