Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to marry?

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

1. Despite ya'lls continued insistance to the contrary (it seems, bereft of your usual boogiemen, most of you lack the willingness or ability to think of a response), I am not arguing that Churches will be forced to perform SSM.

You are arguing that churches will not be allowed to sign off on marriages unless they agree to sign off on SSM. I understand that. You have NO argument. The state does not do that now if a church refuses to marry anyone. We've already seen a link to a church that refused to marry an interracial couple... and nothing happened. This is STILL a conspiracy theory that has no standing, no precedence, and nothing that demonstrates it is heading in that direction. Like I said... nothing but anti-gay scare tactics.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Meh. It's a possibility. I would not say it is a probability. I am not arguing that it will occur. That fine point appears to be beyond the ken of the vast majority of participants in this thread.

You said "the probably would" as Gina pointed out. Now you are backtracking. How about just admitting that you presented a silly conspiracy theory and got schooled on it. You are presenting it as a possibility with NOTHING to give that possibility credence. It is possible that I might win the lottery, tomorrow. Since I haven't bought a ticket, that possibility has no evidence to support it. That's identical to your supposition in this thread.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

You said "the probably would" as Gina pointed out. Now you are backtracking.

I have said and made clear from the beginning that the "probably would" referred strictly to the removal of the Church's ability to perform the legal ceremony, rather than the religious ones.

Churches will face a choice (I would bet) between either giving up their ability to perform legally binding marriages, or their ability to adhere to their beliefs by marrying only whom they choose.

How about just admitting that you presented a silly conspiracy theory and got schooled on it.

1. A conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy. It requires conspirators. I have described no such group of people

2. I have not presented the theory that got jumped on - it seems ya'll are unable to avoid the well-worn ruts of the arguments swirling around these issues. I expect this behavior out of Redress, as she has a rather powerful antipathy that drives her in these discussions. You[/u] are smarter.

You are presenting it as a possibility with NOTHING to give that possibility credence. It is possible that I might win the lottery, tomorrow. Since I haven't bought a ticket, that possibility has no evidence to support it. That's identical to your supposition in this thread.

:shrug: if you were to post a thread that said "Assume I have bought 100 lottery tickets, what is my likelihood of winning", then that would indeed be a rough parallel. The thread is a hypothetical that is deliberately premised on something that has not yet occurred.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

You've got nothing, cp. When you post stupid conspiracy theory crap like this with nothing to base it on, AND you ignore all relevant information that proves you wrong, you don't present yourself as a decent poster. And you used to.

We haven't been able to have a discussion on the topic I posted because so far we have spent all our time with me attempting to beat it into your heads that the "OH NOES THE CONSERVATIVES HAS GONE ALL CRAZY" hysteria that ya'll have been jumping on is misplaced.

Thus far, for example, I have yet to see an answer to mine and Goshin's point that SSM institutions will need a new battle. That would be interesting (and on topic) to see.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

This is probably the single stupidest piece of rhetoric I've seen utilized against the SSM movement.

:doh Except that the thread presupposes an SSM victory. I'm not interested in arguing for or against SSM; that's been rather beaten to death.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

if I'm not mistaken there have already been such suits in either Canada or Europe in recent years.

I don't know about Canada, but here in Spain, where SSM has been legally conducted since 2005, the Catholic church has not conducted any such marriages and I'm not aware of any such law suits. Of course, that could be a cultural thing. People here tend to avoid litigation wherever and whenever possible. In the UK, where the SSM legislation is currently passing through parliament, the bill specifically states that religious groups will have the freedom to perform, or not perform, SSM ceremonies. It also specifically prohibits the established church (The CofE) from conducting SSM ceremonies, this last was a sop to conservatives.

Once this matter is concluded, I'd hope that LGBT activism will shift to focus on more important issues such as the bullying to death of gay teens and the linking of international aid to action against discrimination and persecution of LGBT minorities. We've spent long enough on the marriage issue.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

I highly doubt it. A church can still refuse to marry mixed race couples if they want. A priest is not a government official or employee and is under no obligation to marry just whomever walks in.

Now THAT is an actual piece of evidence relating to the topic at hand.

When is someone acting on behalf of the government and thus beholden to their rules? Priests do so when they marry - that is why, for example, they are not allowed to legally bind siblings (they may, I suppose, still do the purely religious ceremony, they simply cannot combine it with the civil one).

It is precisely that fusion of state/civil function that will lead, I think, to tension. While I agree that the ability of Churches to deny mixed-race couples is a precedent, it is also worth noting that the Civil Rights movement was not about marriage, as the SSM has been. If Churches retained the right to refuse to hire African Americans, for example, that might be a more powerful precedent in this area.

Many churches have already set up a legal defense mechanism: The priest will marry any members of the church, but only members of the church, and you have to agree in writing to a certain code of conduct in order to become a member of the church.

Huh. I will admit I had not heard of this - and I belong to a pretty mainline denomination. It would be an interesting, though sad, defensive mechanism.

Rather or not such a church would still receive municipal grants or tax exempt status is an issue far more complicated then I care to get into. I know there are exemptions and I know it can very from case to case.

Well increasingly we seem unwilling to differentiate between what is wrong and what is wrong but politically palatable.

There are many churches who would have considered my marriage a mixed marriage and not have wed us. I don't know why I would ever belong to such a church.

:shrug: nor I. Paul was pretty clear - in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. My church here is about 40% white, 30% black, 30% asian, and honestly, I enjoy the diversity in worship styles more than I would have thought I would have.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Marriage predates any kind of civilian authority. Ask any of those opposed to SSM, and most of them will tell you that it "has always been one way since time immemorial" not "since the governmentsaid so."

Marriage predates religon

 

[cpwill]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Marriage predates religon

I would like to see some backing for this. As near as we can tell, mankind has always felt a draw to the divine. We have no record of a humanity before that draw, in fact.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Me pointing out homosexuality as a sin is not "playing God."

Me pointing out my weaknesses is not hypocritical.

Me showing that we all need to repent is in direct keeping with the word.

You not accepting the truth and declaring homosexuality as acceptable in the eyes of Lord is a dangerous place to be.

The irony about you, is you think you are not judgmental, and yet that is all you do. You call me a disrespectful pig, and I have not been disrespectful in any way, shape or form.


I have not called anyone a pig. You have though. You know what a hypocrite is? Tell me.


Like I said. Keep on thinking homosexuality is acceptable in eyes of the Lord. Make yourself feel comfortable.


Good luck.

I am sorry for this comment

Please keep posting your ignorance this pigs fun

That was a mistake, i meant to right "this is fun", I apologize sincerely for that.
The only thing I took offense to is you saying that people aren't Christian. You don't have that ability. You can't say who is worthy of entering the kingdom without judging.

I have explained to you that you are ignorant to what the Bible really says. You only parrot the flawed English translation as it applies only to modern culture. In ancient Greek it says nothing about homosexuality, it mentions men using boy sex slaves and in ancient Greece we know that was common place and that would be very relevant at those times. But if you think the original stunners of the Bible wrote it wrong in their day only so it can be translated to lose it's meaning almost completely by a group of people that did not necessarily have the lords interest in mind when they did so that is dangerous.

You are an abomination if you easy shrimp as the same book that in your mind defines homosexuals as an abomination.

Bottom line the Bible absolutely doesn't say the slightest thing about homosexuals except for in incomplete translations. I have spoken to the lord extensively about this. And when read with out the prism of bias that you read it under it doesn't establish homosexuality as an abomination, Brian firms of it yes are abominable, just like centurion forms of heterosexuality are,.modern society agrees, selecting with your sister, sister in law, mother, mother in law, on and on. The original text was very clear on what forms of homosexuality are unacceptable as with heterosexuality. But as we know it today, homosexuality was not mentioned. It's clear that the people that translated the Bible to modern English were of the opinion that all homosexuality is wrong, so they omitted the specifics.

Do yourself a favor, please learn how at least interpret the original language, midden English can be very devious and deceptive.

Another thing you need to do is remember we as Christians worship the lord, not the word. The two commandments that Jesus said were of the up most importance, "love God and love each other". That was his fulfillment of the law, remember he didn't say that he abolished law that instead he came to fulfill it. The only action that is comdenable is to blaspheme the holy spirit. You interpreting my form of love a blaspheme is in it's self blasphemous. You stood in judgment of me, you said in your own words, you said I was an abomination. That I could not enter heaven, you played God, you said that this will bar me from heaven meaning you have attempted tip condemn me to damnation.

Remember, that which you use to measure others will be used to measure you. You broke a commandment, I by being bisexual break no rules that are established in actual Bible text, maybe the incomplete modern English translation but not actual text.

I Am not judging you the lord loves you beyond all things and will forgive you and all of us. But you didn't see the beam in your eye before you attempted to remove the splinter from mine.

Once again I am very sorry for that pig comment, I did not mean to type that. Sorry that i did not proof read my post.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

I would like to see some backing for this. As near as we can tell, mankind has always felt a draw to the divine. We have no record of a humanity before that draw, in fact.

Draw to the divine? That really ha little to do with religion. People didn't organize into religions until about 2500 years ago. There were tribes and spiritual beliefs typically mildly unique to the tribe of which they served. Giant global churches didn't exist until about 200ad. Gentiles were a tribe of Jews that believed Jesus was God. Prior to that you had tribal Jews, tribal pagans and other mystics. Catholicism was the first thing that could really be called an organized religion.

If you are using the term religion as a more general and less organized concept of spirituality that there is no such thing as non religious, because every person, custom, Jew, pagan, atheist, agnostic, nihilist, buddest or whatever has a spiritual reasoning, otherwise we would all be sociopaths.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Draw to the divine? That really ha little to do with religion. People didn't organize into religions until about 2500 years ago.

Hm. That is not, as we understand it, what we call "accurate". For example, we have firm examples of the Egyptian and Chinese religion millenia before that.

I think you are confusing "religion" with "judaism in its' modern recognizable form".

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Hm. That is not, as we understand it, what we call "accurate". For example, we have firm examples of the Egyptian and Chinese religion millenia before that.

I think you are confusing "religion" with "judaism in its' modern recognizable form".

religion to me is an organization that share a common belief and worship a common deity, they are deeply routed in culture and in civilization. polytheistic religions to me seem a but paradoxical. Because there are many gods that are worshiped differently and are only part of a larger religion because of association. Basically put I am completely accepting of things such a Buddhism, Hinduism, shamanism, druidism, and other polytheistics as religion, but it defys the definition of an organized religion in my opinion. Organized religions seem to have a uniform standard of living. It is easier to do in monotheism which include mostly Judaism, Islam and christianity. But there is a rigor or a code of conduct a behavior that must be adhered to.

I think you are confusing religion with spirituality, they often go hand in hand, except for in most monotheistic religions.

What religion is to me the best i can define it is a list of rules that must be obeyed and the cost is some spiritual payment. Egyptians worshiped their kings, that is a government far more than a religion.

Every government can change is rule, so if a God king died and a successor came in the successor can invent an entire new way of being a God. however if the pope just decided to say that its okay for men to molest boys, that wouldn't fly because he isn't the religion.

I guess I see organized religion very differently than religion. There are Christians, Jews, and muslims that aren't in organized religions. The thug that jumps to mind when i say organized religion is the catholic church, but there is other churches with Parsons and vice roys or what ever. I know such things exist in judaism, and in Islam. But i don't know of such ways to subdivide hindus, there are sects but that is really tribe based to my understanding

 

[tessaesque]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Take the church out of the business of sanctioning state-recognized marriages and you resolve any conflict that might be created by allowing state-sanctioned gay marriage.

Churches can still refuse to perform religious marital ceremonies on the basis of their beliefs, and couples who want state-recognized marriage can acquire it w/o fear of discrimination.

 

[tessaesque]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

I would like to see some backing for this. As near as we can tell, mankind has always felt a draw to the divine. We have no record of a humanity before that draw, in fact.

Even if he's wrong, it doesn't matter, because religion never owned the action of marriage. Prior to the big three (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) marriage unions were almost always based on political maneuvering and strategic relationship building and had little to do with religion itself. Christianity adopted marriage as a religious ritual because of its views on sexual relations. In fact, MOST religions who adopted marriage did so for that reason.

Any religious involvement was based upon the need for a "binding" agreement. Before "law and order", one relied upon ceremony. Whether that came from a higher power (i.e. religion), or a tribal structure of hierarchy, there is little to no evidence to support the belief that religion owns, created, or controls the process (or that religion created it...and by religion, of course, I mean the higher power).

 

[Somerville]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Simply to provoke a bit more discussion on this subject, I provide here a link to a NPR page about "Gay Rights & Religious Liberties" The page covers stories from 2008

This story is more recent
Massachusetts Gay Couple Sues Catholic Diocese Over Failed Housing Bid I can't see the Church winning this case, not when the Diocese has been quite open as to just why they refused to sell the property to the gay guys.

 

[Aderleth]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

:doh Except that the thread presupposes an SSM victory. I'm not interested in arguing for or against SSM; that's been rather beaten to death.

That doesn't make your concern any more grounded in reality. What the state does and what churches do are two fundamentally different and unrelated concepts. The notion that SSM will have any impact whatsoever on what churches are legally able to do is ignorant beyond belief.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

When is someone acting on behalf of the government and thus beholden to their rules?

When the government sends you a W2 at the end of he year because you're an "employee".

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Out of genuine curiosity, are churches are required by law to marry atheists?

 

[Penderyn]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

Out of genuine curiosity, are churches are required by law to marry atheists?

If they are established churches, almost certainly. Otherwise, no.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

If they are established churches, almost certainly. Otherwise, no.

You'll have to spell it out for me. What's the difference between established and unestablished churches?

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

I'm trying to google it and can't get any results. Wow, you'd think this would have come up by now.

 

[Penderyn]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

You'll have to spell it out for me. What's the difference between established and unestablished churches?

An established church - like the C of E for example - is assumed to be the church of all those who don't opt out, and is required to provide for legal necessities like marriage (unless after divorce). Non-established or dis-established churches do as they please.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

An established church - like the C of E for example - is assumed to be the church of all those who don't opt out, and is required to provide for legal necessities like marriage (unless after divorce). Non-established or dis-established churches do as they please.

Ah, like in Denmark. Religious people were going nuts recently pointing to a story where Denmark's church was forced to perform gay marriages.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Assuming SSM, will Churches will be stripped of their right to choose whom to mar

I would bet that they do. The argument being that since pastors/priests/etc are acting on behalf of the state ("therefore by the powers vested in me by the state of Arizona I do declare this couple..."), that they do not have the right to use those powers granted them by the state to discriminate in ways that the state does not.

While it is possible that churches that refuse to marry SS couples will lose members and so be induced to change their ways.
No church will ever be forced to marry anyone, it is just another red herring. Otherwise we would have women priests in Catholic churches, wouldn't we?