{"id":2467,"date":"2012-11-03T21:50:21","date_gmt":"2012-11-04T04:50:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/?p=2467"},"modified":"2013-11-08T10:07:50","modified_gmt":"2013-11-08T18:07:50","slug":"commentary-i-%e2%99%a5-the-1st-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/commentary-i-%e2%99%a5-the-1st-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Commentary: I \u2665 the 1st Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

By the Rev. Ann Adkinson*<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I voted to approve Referendum 74. There are lots of reasons to do so. This is one I like to call “I \u2665 the 1st Amendment, or Let\u2019s Have Religious Freedom.”<\/p>\n

So, last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church has discerned that only celibate men are fit for ordained ministry as priests. The Southern Baptist Convention has discerned that only men are fit for ordained ministry as pastors. The United Methodist Church has discerned that men and women are equally fit for ordained ministry, provided we are faithful in marriage and celibate in singleness. Members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church USA, and the Presbyterian Church USA have discerned that men and women are equally fit for ordained ministry, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons, regardless of whether they are partnered and able to marry in their state of residence.<\/p>\n

Q: Which interpretation of clergy ordination will the mostly non-church-going population of Washington State be voting to uphold this year?<\/p>\n

A: If you guessed, \u201cNone – because it\u2019s not the state\u2019s business to establish one religious practice for all citizens,\u201d you are correct! Blow a kiss to the Bill of Rights\u2019 1st Amendment as you go by.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, if you can understand why the government does not try to reconcile the aforementioned differences on clergy standards, yet does prohibit job discrimination based on sex in civil jobs, you should also be puzzled why we are voting on Referendum 74, which grants equal rights to civil marriage for same-sex couples.<\/p>\n

As far as I have been able to discern, the reasons folks give to deny equal access to civil marriage to all adult couples are religious reasons.\u00a0I am all for religious folks speaking up about our religious convictions. I just want us to name a religious position when we\u2019re claiming one.<\/p>\n

We do not have an official state church in the U.S. We are not a theocracy, or an ecclesiocracy. I am really grateful for that. I am a fan of the \u201cestablishment\u201d and the \u201cfree exercise\u201d clauses in the first Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which offer some separation between church and state. (If you haven\u2019t checked out the U.S. Constitution recently, it really is worth reading.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Click here to read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in a new window.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
<\/div>\n

Religious convictions can and do and should influence public policy. But religious convictions sometimes conflict with civil rights. When they do, it is the government\u2019s job to prevent one group\u2019s purely religious position from being the established law of the land \u2013 especially when it restricts the civil rights of some citizens. (That\u2019s the establishment clause at work.)I value religious freedom because it gives me the right to explore my relationship with God without the interference of government. It enables me to connect with others and worship in community without worrying that the state police are going to come in and take my clergy credentials away if they don\u2019t like what I preach or teach.<\/p>\n

Some of my religious ideas differ from other people\u2019s religious ideas, even (especially?) those of other Christians. Shocking? Not really. But because of beautiful Amendment 1, I am free to exercise my religious beliefs and others are free to exercise theirs. We can do this simultaneously, even when our ideas are opposite, and the U.S. government just leaves us alone to disagree, ignore each other, or, increasingly, to shout ugly names at one another in the street, in the press, and all over the internet. I could do without the ugly name-calling, but the government\u2019s tolerance and protection of this is a wonderful and precious thing about living in the USA. (That’s the free exercise clause at work.)<\/p>\n

Another example: The government has made the decision that divorce and remarriage after divorce are both legal. Some churches and faith communities recognize divorce and marry previously divorced people. Some churches and faith communities do not recognize divorce and do not marry previously divorced people. The government does not weigh in on this in the religious arena. Which seems prudent, if not downright wise.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t expect or desire the government to get involved in matters of religious interpretation. To do so would mean that either all the traditions that do not [ordain women, recognize divorce, marry previously divorced people] would have to go against their beliefs, or all the traditions that do [ordain women, recognize divorce, marry previously divorced people] would have to go against our beliefs. I don\u2019t see that going well.<\/p>\n

Yet, this is the state of things right now around civil marriage rights.<\/p>\n

Already, there are many churches and other faith communities that bless same-sex relationships (and same-sex marriages, in the states where those are legal).\u00a0There are many churches and other faith communities that do not bless same-sex relationships, and are unlikely ever to do so.\u00a0There are many churches and faith communities (such as my own) that are deeply divided and still discerning what God is calling us to do in the church.\u00a0Religious communities have and can and will continue to figure out what to do in our respective religious arenas.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, civil marriage in a civil society must be offered to all citizens equally, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).<\/p>\n

So, whether you are for or against marriage for same sex-couples in your religious tradition, supporting Referendum 74 is the right thing to do. It protects your religious freedom, and the religious freedom of your neighbors.<\/p>\n

If I want my religious freedom, then I have to allow others theirs, including the right to reject religion altogether. To impose my religious interpretation on all other citizens is unjust. I don\u2019t always get my way. That\u2019s the deal I get, living in a democracy. In exchange, I get the right to be an ordained minister in whatever religious community will ordain me, and I get to be married to a person who was previously married and divorced. That\u2019s the deal. It is a good deal, and I would like to keep it. That is why I voted Yes on Referendum 74 and I hope you do, too.<\/p>\n

\n

* The Rev. Ann Adkinson is Pastor at Colby United Methodist Church in Port Orchard, Washington. She graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 2010.<\/em><\/p>\n

Photograph of the Constitution of the United States taken in the National Archives. Photo Credit: Flickr User,\u00a0Mr. T in DC<\/a>, some rights reserved.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By the Rev. Ann Adkinson* I voted to approve Referendum 74. There are lots of reasons to do so. This is one I like to call “I \u2665 the 1st Amendment, or Let\u2019s Have Religious Freedom.” So, last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church has discerned that only celibate men are fit for ordained ministry […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":51,"featured_media":2470,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-2467","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-conversation"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/4249886990_107e92c466_b.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2l75j-DN","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/51"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2467"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2467\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2475,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2467\/revisions\/2475"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}