From: Interfaith Working Group Subject: IWG Indianapolis Star letter 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 iwg@libertynet.org and clergy supporting gay rights, http://www.libertynet.org/~iwg/ reproductive freedom, and the 215-235-3050 separation of church and state.