Subject: IWG Indianapolis Star letter
From: Interfaith Working Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:50:09 -0500 (EST)

The following went out on IWG letterhead listing 3 congregations, 5 religious
organizations and 36 clergy from 12 faiths and denominations. If you are in 
the general Philadelphia area and represent a congregation or religious 
organization or are clergy, let us know if you want to be added - all faiths 
are welcome. We will also be happy to help start similar organizations in 
other areas.

December 8, 1996

Letters to the Editor
Indianapolis Star
PO Box 145
Indianapolis, IN 46206-0145

Dear Editor:

	Your editorial about the legalization of same-
gender marriage was extremely confusing.  Distinctions
between religious and civil marriage only serve to
clarify what is God's and what is Caesar's.  If Pope
Leo XIII was correct in saying that to "take away from
man the natural and primitive right of marriage laid
down in the beginning by God himself" is "beyond the
power of any human law,"  then Judge Chang's decision--
or any judge's decision--cannot fundamentally alter the
nature of the institution of religious marriage.
	You also managed to confuse the primary religious
and non-religious arguments against same-gender
marriage.  The non-religious argument is that many
major cultures of the world throughout history have
defined marriage as being between one man and one
woman.  This is in itself highly debatable, since many
cultures have practiced or still practice some form of
polygamy (including Judaism, Mormonism,  and Islam) and
there is evidence of same-gender marriage in the Roman
Empire and during the early Christian era.  But even if
that argument were correct, you raise some peculiar
theological questions by also using the religious
argument that God created the institution; did God, for
instance, create the institution for the major non-
theistic and non-Western cultures as well?
	While we were pleased by the mention of churches
that do not morally disapprove of same-gender
relationships, we were also confused as to how they fit
into your overall argument.  If there is nothing wrong
with churches blessing same-gender relationships that
meet with their moral approval, and if there are enough
such churches to warrant a mention in your editorial,
then your argument that Judge Chang's ruling
constitutes a moral breakdown is severely compromised. 
Moral offense to a simple majority is not
constitutionally adequate for the restriction of rights
to some of the people.
	Finally, we cannot accept your argument that same-
gender marriage renders the civil institution
meaningless.  In fact, rather than expanding the
meaning of marriage, it clarifies its meaning: a
legally sanctified contract of mutual support between
two consenting adults.

Sincerely,
Barbara Purdom     Christopher Purdom
Interfaith Working Group Coordinators

-- 

Interfaith Working Group                Religious organizations, congregations 
[email-masked]                      and clergy supporting gay rights,
http://www.libertynet.org/~iwg/         reproductive freedom, and the 
215-235-3050                            separation of church and state.