First it was Barak Obama and his pastor. Now it is McCain and one of his endorsers. I am surprised at the religious undertones in American politics. This is the first time I have been following a US presidential race closely and it has been an eye opener. I had always thought of US as a truly secular country, where religion does not intrude in public life. People don’t judge you on the basis of your religious beliefs and affiliations. In the past one year I have been forced to change my mind.
A few says back John McCain appeared on Ellen DeGeneres show. She asked about his stand on gay marriages and he said he believes marriage is only between a man and a women..
“There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same, we are all the same people,” she told McCain. “All of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same.” He asked him if he would walk her down the aisle.
For a change, I felt sorry for McCain. Why should a leader have to defend his religious beliefs? While I totally agree that gays should be given equal rights as any other human being, I don’t see why an individual should be forced to accept a view which contradicts his faith. Being a Hindu, I believe beef eating is a sin (I think meat eating itself is not right). I have many friends who eat beef and I hold them in high regard. However, I would be offended if they insist that I share their beef steak. That is why I found Ellen’s question in bad taste.
There is another aspect I do not understand about gay marriages. Isn’t marriage a religious ceremony? By making gay marriage legal, aren’t you forcing the church to sanctify a union which it believes to be a sin? Isn’t this against the secular fabric of a democracy? When you talk about separation of state and church doesn’t it work both ways. How can the state force its morality on the church?
In India, Muslims are allowed to marry twice whereas Hindus are not. This was because Muslims were guaranteed at the time of independence that their religious freedom will be fully protected. From what I know, Indian law even upholds their divorce laws which can be carried out by a unilateral declaration by the husband and does not require the husband to pay any maintenance to the wife. Do I find it appalling – yes I do; from the stand point of my morality. But who am I to judge. I am sure there are many aspect of my religion which others may find equally appalling.
Do you do blogroll exchanging? If you want to exchange links let me know.
Email me back if you’re interested.
[...] Christiaan wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI had always thought of US as a truly secular country, where religion does not intrude in public life. People don’t judge you on the basis of your religious beliefs and affiliations. In the past one year I have been forced to change my … [...]
[...] Micah L. Sifry wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFirst it was Barak Obama and his pastor. Now it is McCain and one of his endorsers. I am surprised at the religious undertones in American politics. This is the first time I have been following a US presidential race closely and it has … [...]
I’ve been reading along for a while now. I just wanted to drop you a comment to say keep up the good work.
Interesting post. Actually, it is the leaders’ self-professed religious intent (i guess due to vote banks) that is the reason for this connection. Additionally, leaders also make laws that favor their religious beliefs. For instance, a Republican leader is highly likely to pass a law that makes abortion illegal. That makes me very hesitant to vote for a Republican. It is due to this reason that politics and religion are irretrievably intertwined.
[...] you separate a man from his religion Micah L. Sifry wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFirst it was Barak Obama and his [...]
Archana,
I maybe wrong, but here is how I differ from what you are saying.
I do not know if the homosexual population is looking for religious vindication. What they want is the *state* to afford them the same rights that is given to the heterosexual population.
In the eyes of the law, two folks are married not because of the religious ceremony, but because they signed the marriage certificate. And homosexuals want this same privilege and I do not find anything wrong with this request.
This is how you can separate the quandary between state and church when it comes to gay marriages.
If a minister or a priest would marry two homosexuals as per religious rights, that would be a bonus. But primarily, the fight is against the state to accept and validate their marriage.
Laws may have to accommodate religion on a case by case basis, but it should NOT force its view on religion. I do not think states such as California and Massachusetts that have made gay marriages legal are not looking to twist the arms of any religious group.
Ganesh
Thank you Sukumar. I agree with your point. Leaders who pass laws based on religious beliefs are dangerous. My point was, are they entitled to their personal beliefs? A leader can believe abortion is sin and also believe that a person is entitled to make a choice, it is their fundamental right. When there is a conflict between constitution and religion, definitely constitution should be upheld.
Hi Ganesh – Thank you. I was little confused on this point, Ganesh. Doesn’t a civil union give the same right a marraige gives? I was under the impression that the only difference between a marraige and a civil union is that the former is a religious cermony whereas the latter is a legal provision. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Jaime – Thanks a lot for your encouragement.
Archana,
I do not understand your question – “Doesn’t a civil union give the same right a marraige gives?”.
I was primarily trying to answer your question –
“Isn’t marriage a religious ceremony? By making gay marriage legal, aren’t you forcing the church to sanctify a union which it believes to be a sin? Isn’t this against the secular fabric of a democracy? When you talk about separation of state and church doesn’t it work both ways. How can the state force its morality on the church?”
My point is, atleast in the USA, religious ceremony can be part of a marriage. Marriage is only legal in the eyes of the law with the signing of marriage license. Priests can officiate both the religious ceremony and this signing.
And so, my point is that the fight is *primarily* against the state to make gay marriage legal and not the church.
The following link http://www.marriageequality.org/meusa/facts.shtml?religious-vs-civil
contains information in civil vs. religious ceremony in the US.
And yes, some sections of the homsexual population/organization may want the church to legalize gay marriages also, but this is a separate fight.
Ans my point is that I do not see any issue with separation of church and state in this matter at least. By even trying to mix them together, the fight for gay rights would be harmed.
Ganesh
Hi Archana,
I am not disputing ur post ..but my view point is this ……As
Ellen was wrong in trying to impose her belief on MCCain..But in any struggle it is mandatory to make a loud noise…Now when u have potential candidate in front is nt it an easy option to make the noise….
This is a great post Archana.
In the United States, separation of church and state was very important to the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. Many of the original pilgrims and immigrants who came to America came to escape religious persecution. In their countries of origin, taxes were levied to support a state church and laws oppressed people who didn’t belong to the state church.
The doctrine of separation of church and state was established to eliminate religious oppression and to uphold the individual’s right to choose a religion and worship any way their conscience dictated. No one would be judged in the courts of the land by another’s religious beliefs and no one would be forced to support a church or religion not of their choice.
Certainly a man’s religion will affect his opinions and decisions. We see that as a good thing, it is his moral compass. But, when politicians seems unduly influenced by religion to the point that they are persuaded to act against the constitutional provision for separation of church and state, that is a problem, a threat to our liberty.
When a spiritual advisor sows seeds of discord and borrows strength by using his association with a politician to gain notoriety so that he can sow even greater seeds of discord, Americans rightly take note of the association. Peace, civility and respect are what we strive for.
As for the gay marriage issue, the gays want a legal union in the form of a marriage because of the financial benefits and moral acceptance that it affords them. Most tax payers are opposed to gay marriage for the same reasons.
Janet..
/** As for the gay marriage issue, the gays want a legal union in the form of a marriage because of the financial benefits and moral acceptance that it affords them. Most tax payers are opposed to gay marriage for the same reasons.
**/
This is a very new dimension to this gay marriage issue. Probably, i feel convinced with this reason, the financial aspect, and other governmental benefits by this acceptance are primary factors for this protest.
Because, i havent heard any gay couples being arrested for being involved in that relation. If they are not disturbed, why should they protest.
personally, i am against gay marriage. It is unnatural let alone, it be unreligious.
Archana,
The concept of secular itself is different in the west and east. As such, west is more of a christain nation, having become tolerant of other faiths. Its more of a i dont disturb you, and you dont disturb me. Only power and authority rules in their secularism.
In India and other eastern countries, its entirely a different concept. secularism is nothing but Vasudeva Kudumbakam. (The universal family)
In vivekananda’s words, religious acceptance rather than religious tolerance is the true meaning of secularism. In that way, we can say, our Hinduism means secular.
Once L.K Advani told “India can be secular & united only as long Hinduism is predominant”.. that’s entirely true, if we consider the episode of East Timor, and Chechanya.
That is why, a sikh prime minister, a muslim president and a catholic head of the party is being accepted here.
Whereas, in US, the fact that obama once practiced islam itself fuels immense suspicion not only among certain section of people, but even in the media and influential ones. (washington once published a news replacing osama with obama, and claimed to be typo error.
)
Another factor is that even though US is secular, their prime minister takes oath in the name of bible. In india, that’s not possible.
Senthil All the US Presidents take oath in Bible has got nothing to with secularism..Its by choice they take as all the presidents have be christians…I guess we can come to ur conclsuion only if a non christian takes up the post….
I would not take LK Advani’s words on secularism so seriously as he told Jinnah was secular when Jinnah is one who wanted to a seperate muslim state..just get some mulsim votes….if u remeber right 10 years back he was one who panging on hindutva….so tmorrow he may call Clement Atlee and Indian Free Fighter as he was british PM who gave us freedom…
Senthil, You will note in the news, the Governor of New York state just sent out a memo that directed all state government agencies to recognize gay marriages that were performed in other states. This will allow gays to piggy back on their spouses insurance benefits which will cost tax payers a large amount of money. This new definition of “family” gives a guy’s boyfriend more privileges than his elderly mother would have under the law because an adult taking care of his elderly parents can not add his parents to his insurance.
This benefit was originally meant for covering minor children and a wife who stays home to care for them where a single income supports a family. It wasn’t meant to cover a person who chooses not to work or who works (dual income) and wants to get cheaper benefits.
Ganesh, Kathik, Janet, Senthil – Thank you all for the lively discussion. It has given me lot to think about.
Karthick.. i am not against taking oath on bible.. rather, i was highlighting the way secularism was hijacked in India..
Regarding L.K. Advani, i too was furious when he named jinnah a secular..
But, later on, when i read his interviews, and recently his book, i could understand the situation he uttered those words..
Infact, when i read the whole text of his speech, this jinnah secular phrase was just a single phrase, which the media bowed it too much out of proportion..
The speech was aimed at reminding the pakistanis of Jinnah’s speech on how he enivsioned pakistan as a secular state.. this speech was for pakistanis..
unfortunately, there was no one to understand this ..
Thanks Janet.. when marriage is based on customs and culture, it would have a meaning & purpose.. If its based on law, then we can not expect anything else than this..
Can you separate a man from his religion?
I do not think so.
What we think and we do is based on our core beliefs and those beliefs are religious origin most of the times, unless a person does not believe in any religion at all.
Of course, what I mean is that ideas about “right and wrong” are religious origin and those ideas govern the thinking of the man.
Religion does NOT mean a particular religion; it could be summation of ideas one grasp from many religions.
Hey Archana.. nice blog.. soo nice to chance upon it
:)
Just a quick comment on your note about “gay marraiges”..’cos I differ that “marraige is a religious ceremony”.. marraige is more of a “legal authorization ceremony”. which grants legal partners the right to visit in a hospital ER or the right to enjoy spousal medical benefits or right to share retirement benefits, etc . These things have nothing to do with religion but are more relevant to a legal stamp that most oppsite sex legal partners automatically entail.
So, when the gays in the U.S are fighting for their marraige to be legalised, I would think the other legal benfits/rights are what they are primarily focussing on. .approval/acceptance by the church is possibly last on thier list I would think !!:):)
“There is another aspect I do not understand about gay marriages. Isn’t marriage a religious ceremony? By making gay marriage legal, aren’t you forcing the church to sanctify a union which it believes to be a sin? Isn’t this against the secular fabric of a democracy? When you talk about separation of state and church doesn’t it work both ways. How can the state force its morality on the church?”
Sujatha makes an excellent point especially in the last paragraph. The fact is, all of the non-tax supported benefits (or benefits supported by a third party) that are available to married couples can be obtained through giving legal authorization to the partners comprising a gay couple. Friends can visit hospitals, inherit estates and have power of attorney over their friend.
Interestingly enough, there are several states that have legal registries now to provide gay couples that work for the state, city or government agency the same access to spousal insurance benefits as a married couple.
The truth is that gay couples are acting like the atheists in that they are forcing (or trying to force) religious people that don’t agree with their life styles or philosophies to accept that which goes against the person’s religion. Gays and atheists can speak out, but if a religious person speaks out, they call it discrimination or hate speech. It seems that only the gays and the atheists are allowed to practice their lack of religion unrestrained.
Archana – Why should a marriage be a religious ceremony? If what you say is true, atheists like me can never get married. Marriage is the union of 2 people. Religion has no standing there, unless people choose to get married under a Religious Law (such as the “Hindu/Islamic/Christian Marriages Act” in India).
I’m frankly surprised that you find Ellen’s question in bad taste. As president, McCain has the power to legalize gay marriages. Or not. Anyone with the Civil Liberties of gay people in their minds can ask that question to a presidential nominee.
Priya – What I meant by religious ceremony is that marriages are held in churches, unless it is a registered marriage. When you legalize marriage aren’t you forcing the church to marry same sex couples?
You are right about people being able to question a presidential candidate. I found the condescending way Ellen asked the question, quite offensive.
Archana – No, churches & temples are not forced. Places of worship can always refuse to conduct marriages if it is against their beliefs – And they do.
Most gay people who want their marriages to be legalized just want to be permitted into the ICU – like a spouse would be; covered under their spouse’s insurance; have children & raise them – basic things that straight couples take for granted.
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Sharply!!
WRONG WRONG WRONG
“In India, Muslims are allowed to marry twice whereas Hindus are not. This was because Muslims were guaranteed at the time of independence that their religious freedom will be fully protected.”
The above statement is wrong. No body is allowed to be married to two people in India at the same time. At Independence, India promised to it self that it will remain secular. No specific promises were made though there is seperate Muslim Personal Law and Hindu personal law. This was needed as some customs are different like Muslims marry first cousin but not Hindus.
I admire your writings on books and arts. However when you write about politics, you tend to write what you know. Since you dont seem to be ardent follwer of news and politics, you only get perceptions created rather than facts. Perceptions are built by being exposed to news on and off. No offense.