Report Inappropriate Comments

John once again you failed to check your sources, of you had bothered to take the time to view my testimony you would have hear me say several things.

First you would have heard me ask the committee to dismiss ANY theological augment on either side pro or con. I made the point that this was not a theological debate but a legal one. I said that it was inappropriate for any side to give testimony based on doctrine

I also said that we need to protect the religious liberty of ALL, not just some. Since the bill has the protection of the religious liberties of those who do not want to perform same gender marriages already written into it to cry wolf about having their religious liberties in jeopardy in nothing but a straw man.

The bill clearly states that “This act would allow any two (2) individuals, who are otherwise eligible under chapter 15-1, to marry regardless of gender, while protecting the freedom of religious institutions to make their own decisions regarding marriage eligibility within their own faith’s tradition, without interference from the state. This act would also prohibit any state agency or local government from penalizing any clergy for refusing to solemnize a marriage under this chapter”. So it would have NO impact on the church.

However to forbid those who hold the sincerely held religious belief that all couples have the right in the eyes of god to be married, including same gender couples to follow that religious conviction clearly is a violation of their religious liberties.

In addition if you bothered to listen to my testimony you would have heard me say that the bishop or any other religious leader has every right to testify as a private citizen. However it is inappropriate for them to speak as the mouth piece or on behalf of whatever religious institution they represent. In fact I would love to see someone challenge their tax exempt status basses on the fact that they are lobbing for one side or the other. We could use the extra funding.

As to your augment that religious leaders are not using the legal system to force religious law on people through civil law you clearly have not listened to their testimony if you had you will know that the testimony offered by religious leaders is always based on their holy book, doctrine and other aspects of their religion. (note I did not point out one religion), therefore they ARE using civil law to require others to behave according to their doctrine .

I do support Rev. Betsy Arland Garland’s right to speak about her personal experience as a person who had to struggle to have her same sex marriage legally recognized. I do NOT support her using her doctrine or title to speak on behalf of her church to influence civil law. Again if you take the time to look at my testimony I said the same about the bishop, I even said I would come to his aid if his religious freedom was in jeopardy,

From: Marriage equality endorsed at emotional, one-sided hearing

Please explain the inappropriate content below.