Same-Sex Sacramental Marriage Defended
The Universal Life Church Monastery today announced its legal defense campaign to take action in states that have enacted unconstitutional restraints against same-sex sacramental marriage. States that deny ministers their religious right to perform the sacrament of marriage, regardless of the couple's sexual orientation, according to Universal Life Church Monastery, are doing so in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Seattle, WA (PRWEB) April 15, 2009 -- The Universal Life Church Monastery (TheMonastery.org) has announced a legal defense campaign that will take action in all states that have enacted unconstitutional same-sex sacramental marriage restraints. The Universal Life Church Monastery reports that "States that deny ministers the religious right to perform the sacrament of marriage, regardless of the couple's sexual orientation, do so in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution."
To investigate appropriate legal action supporting same-sex sacramental marriage, the Universal Life Church Monastery has retained two constitutional law firms, which include Arizona-based DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, and Seattle-based Carney Badley Spellman.
As popular support for same-sex sacramental marriage continues to escalate, the Universal Life Church Monastery has observed a marked increase in its ministerial ordination requests. The Universal Life Church receives in excess of 500 ordination requests per day, attributing the increase to nationwide dissatisfaction with the intolerance of traditional religious dogma. Ministers who have joined the Universal Life Church have spoken in favor of its inclusive practices.
Reverend Aiyanna Looney of Oskaloosa, Iowa, a minister of the Universal Life Church Monastery for the past five years, explains her same-sex sacramental marriage beliefs to the Ottumwa Courier: "Starting as early as April 24 [2009, clergy members such as myself will finally be able to officiate legal marriages (religious and secular) for same-sex couples in the State of Iowa. As a Cleric with the Universal Life Church, my right to officiate the marriages of same sex couples, in accordance with my beliefs, is now a protected right by the State of Iowa."
Looney adds, "I am a supporter of same-sex marriage, and I am willing to perform same-sex marriages because I see no difference between the racism I have experienced and the discrimination homosexuals have experienced stemming from Conservative Christian ideology. I am not white, my husband is, and I am in a mixed race marriage. I have been told [that my union [with my husband, Sam Looney, is sacrilegious and not recognized as marriage by several Conservative Christians. These people have used biblical passages such as Genesis 28:1, Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 7:3-4 to support their racist beliefs. However, I have a Certificate of Marriage [and marriage cannot be defined by racists."
The Universal Life Church Monastery recognizes Looney's right to perform the sacrament of marriage, and stands behind the constitutionally protected religious rights for all its ministers to perform ceremonies for any and all United States citizens.
The 20 Million strong Universal Life Church is the only denomination in the world that opens its doors to everyone, and welcomes all who ask to become an ordained minister. As a non-denominational, interfaith ministry, the Universal Life Church Monastery proclaims that God, Mother Nature or intelligent design created all beings intentionally; including gay animals and humans.
-PRweb
posted by Br. Jacob at
11:44 AM
10 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
There is no hypocrisy here. A fundamental tenet of the ULC is to allow anyone to practice their non-violent beliefs. Believing that same-sex couples have a right to marry is not violent. Putting into practice a ceremony to marry same-sex couples, thus exercising that belief, is also non-violent.
Likewise, those who do not believe that same-sex couples have a right to marry hold a non-violent belief - and presumably, they will not perform same-sex marriages in their churches.
The ULC is taking action to ensure that the ENTIRE ordained ministry has the opportunity to marry couples they deem fit to marry - not just those who believe that same-sex couples do not have the right to marry.
Well said Brian. I am a ULC minister and I believe it is my spiritual right to marry same sex couples. Thank you very much for defending ALL of our rights.
It's sad to think that the individual who posted their complaint against the ULC's belief in Same-Sex Marriage did so Anonymously. You would think they would have the courage to stand and speak openly with conviction. As a Gay Christian and an Ordained Minister of this Church, I feel it is my duty to make sure that all individuals, no matter their religious belief or sexual orientation, should have the opportunity to sanctify their marriage in the church of their chosing and with Gods blessing.
I believe the ULC does not push aside those who think differently. Otherwise they would Not have allowed this certain individuals complaint to be posted, they would have blocked it from ever being seen or read. Proving they are as they say they are, a church where all individuals can speak openly and with conviction their beliefs.
The day I recieved my credentials was one of the most wonderful days of my life. I am proud to be an Ordained Minister who happens to be Gay. We all have the right to Love God and serve him for the betterment of all mankind.
You are in error when you say, "There is no hypocrisy here. A fundamental tenet of the ULC is to allow anyone to practice their non-violent beliefs. Believing that same-sex couples have a right to marry is not violent. Putting into practice a ceremony to marry same-sex couples, thus exercising that belief, is also non-violent.
Likewise, those who do not believe that same-sex couples have a right to marry hold a non-violent belief - and presumably, they will not perform same-sex marriages in their churches."
By their proclamations and official stances, they are forcing their gay agenda on those in the ULC who dont subscribe to it. How is it that you cant see the obvious? If they want the equal rights, as you say, then they need to be quiet and let each follow their own path, not pontificate! DO you see the difference?
This is why the ULC in Modesto is the REAL ULC, they DONT force any agendas on others, they truly subscribe to freedom. Not to mention THEY are the ones with oer 20 million, not the Monastery. Doesnt it trouble you when an organiztion misrepresens themselves like that?
Last I checked, as it harms none, do as thou wilt, doesn't come with any fine print.
I think that what this really underscores is the distinction between the religious institution of marriage and the civil institution using the same moniker.
We know that the Governments of the People at play in the US are technically limited to defining civil institutions such as marriage and prohibited from defining religious ones. (How well it works in practice vs. theory is certainly subject to debate. Nevertheless, the Laws of Men are, by their inherent nature, Civil Law and not Religious Law no matter how closely aligned they may seem.)
The ULC Monastery position is, of course, in line with its stated intentions of promoting freedom of, and freedom from religion. An interesting distinction given that the US Constitution only provides protection of one and not the other.
However in light of their stated legal intentions, one can surmise that the ULC Monastery is acting on the side of protecting the people from religion.
The civil institution of marriage is the government recognition of two people pledging their lives to one another... because human history has shown us that we tend to survive better in a buddy-system than we do on our own...
A union ordained by the State, which is what same-sex marriage supporters are seeking and what anti-same-sex marriage laws deny.
Civil marriage is an important distinction from religious marriage. The latter being a union ordained by [Insert Higher Power of Choice here].
Same-sex couples seeking religious marriage can already find outlets to conduct their union ceremonies and receive recognition of such within their religious/spiritual circle. This right has not once been diminished by any piece of legislation signed into law, or amendment to any State Constitution, that set about to define Marriage. If you can find one that specifically defines Religious Marriage, you can rest assured it is nullified by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
What has been allowed to happen, however, is the formation of a civil institution of marriage that is not being applied fairly and equally across the populace with all their contradicting, yet 1st Amendment-protected, beliefs about who can and can not enter into a [religious] marriage.
It raises the question whether there should be any state-recognized institution of the sort in the first place. If so, if there should be such a thing as civil marriage (or civil union if we want to be sensitive to religious concerns about the word) than we need to apply that fairly and equally to all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Every elected official I have ever heard speak against state-recognized same-sex unions has stated explicitly that it was their belief that such unions were to be between a man and a woman.
So we must ask ourselves, what makes one person's belief more (or less) valid than another person's?
In the spirit of Liberty and Justice for all, I should say that nothing elevates one belief above another.
Whatever civil institution we have, if we continue to have a civil institution at all, should be adapted to support what would otherwise be acceptable unions between two people of whatever genitalia. This feels, to me, the only course to remain consistent with the American ideal of freedom and liberty and justice and all that fun stuff we hold so dear.
Personally I think the ULC Monastery's argument is invalid, but no more so than the argument that 'God ordained marriage as being between a man and a woman.'
Our government is ill equipped to be answering the question of who is entitled to enter into a union ordained by a higher power. It is not their place to dictate whom a minister can and can not marry. I doubt you would find a single minister anywhere that wanted the State telling them how they could conduct their sacred rites of marriage.
It is futile and irresponsible for us, as a society, to be looking to the government to make these distinctions to begin with. Once we start down that path (which of course we're already on just by way of having a civil institution of marriage) we must take care in how we implement them.
It seems a dangerous precedent for us to be setting to allow beliefs about marriage born of a religious or spiritual mindset to enter into and dictate our civil policies.
Although the Constitution may not provide protection from religion, it does seem to me (and apparently the ULC Monastery) that by not protecting our fellow Americans from religion (even if we personally agree with the religious tenant in question) we erode the freedom of religion for all Americans, ourselves included.
Rev Liz Brown,
What God Has Joined together- Let no man put as under.
Enough Said
Let me be clear about this. This INCORRECT ACCEPTANCE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE UNDER CHRIST cannot stand in a Bible-directed church. The ULC Monastery should not imply that scripture in any way permits same-sex marriage. No interpretation of the Old Testament implies that holy matrimony is anything but between a man and as many women as the current culture says he can marry. No interpretation of the New Testament says that holy matrimony can exist between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman. Now, let me be clear. I am a ULC minister, and as such would NOT marry a same sex couple in the church. I am, however, a notary, and the marriages I conduct in Florida are civil ceremonies. I have no problem with same sex civil ceremonies, where the law allows, because they are not and never will be holy matrimony.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home