Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

[roguenuke]

There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.

 

[Paschendale]

A church is a private organization and can choose to wed or not wed anyone they like. The state, on the other hand, is public and does not have that choice.

 

[Ikari]

A church is a private organization and can choose to wed or not wed anyone they like. The state, on the other hand, is public and does not have that choice.

Yup, that's pretty much it. The individual churches would not have to marry any couple they do not want to. But the government would have to recognize the Marriage Contract between same sex couples.

 

[roguenuke]

I also want to say that I will only be counting those votes that actually have a name associated with them as an accepted vote for or against. I figure I will post results every so often so people can know how many registered users actually want or are against this, vice someone who may just be messing with the poll.

 

[Gipper]

Any liberal would have to be a complete idiot to vote yes. They're the ones usually clamoring the loudest for a separation of church and state. A vote yes here would make them completely hypocritical.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I actively oppose the idea of forcing churches to do things against their beliefs (provided noone is being harmed of course)

 

[GhostlyJoe]

The government should have no authority to force a private religious institution to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. However, should a religious instituion decide to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples, there is no reason the government should treat it differently than any other union.

 

[Your Star]

I would oppose forcing churches to marry SSM couples.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe this is something liberals and conservatives can agree on?

 

[roguenuke]

Maybe this is something liberals and conservatives can agree on?

One of a few things that most everyone can agree on. I'm sure there might be a couple of people somewhere who would truly believe in a "yes" vote, but I don't think I know any of them personally and certainly don't think there are any on this board.

 

[Laila]

No, never in US as they have the separation.

In countries that don't however, it is fair game.

 

[cpwill]

There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.

obviously it won't start with this. it will start with a Church not wanting to hire someone who is homosexual.

 

[Kal'Stang]

obviously it won't start with this. it will start with a Church not wanting to hire someone who is homosexual.

As far as I know a church cannot not hire someone due to their sexuality so long as it is in a store or what not. However they can decide to not hire a homosexual to work in their church.

 

[CriticalThought]

There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.

Nobody actually believes that if same sex couples are allowed to marry that it would mean churches would be forced to marry them. That is just a thinly veiled consequence of belief fallacy that people pander off in an attempt to scare or piss off people. You would have to be incredibly stupid to actually believe that gays could override the 1st amendment by simply earning the right to marry.

 

[CriticalThought]

obviously it won't start with this. it will start with a Church not wanting to hire someone who is homosexual.

Slippery slope fallacy? No thanks.

 

[molten_dragon]

I'm opposed to a church being forced to marry anyone that they are not comfortable marrying. A marriage performed by a justice of the peace is just as legal as one performed by a pastor/priest/etc.

 

[The Mark]

No sane person, unless they know nothing (or care not) about the US constitution and US history, would suggest such a thing - unless perhaps in jest…

 

[roguenuke]

So the tally so far is (of voters that can be trusted, since we can see their names)

0 yes
20 no
1 other (which was explained)

And, yes, I know that this is pretty much what should be expected. I was trying to make the point that without some sort of support for such an issue, there is very little chance that any group could get something like this to override the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion. I'm sure that this was probably one of the same arguments used to try to keep interracial marriage bans in place, most likely met with the same attitudes that we have now, and with good reason. No church in the US, that I know of, has ever been forced by a state to marry any couple that the church didn't approve of. It is against the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion and, quite frankly pointless, especially nowdays, when anyone can get ordained on the internet and sign up with their state to legally perform marriages.

 

[Josie]

Hell no! Why would anyone think that would be Constitutional?

 

[Goshin]

There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.

The poll itself constitutes a sort of strawman argument, because if such a thing is imposed, it will not be imposed through the will of the majority, but through the action of activist judges.

 

[OscarB63]

forcing churches to wed same sex couples is like forcing the WNBA to allow male players or forcing the united negro college fund to give scholarships to white kids.

 

[roguenuke]

The poll itself constitutes a sort of strawman argument, because if such a thing is imposed, it will not be imposed through the will of the majority, but through the action of activist judges.

Where could they possibly get their position from? It would be in direct violation of the very first Amendment. And no group has ever been told that their right to get married overrides a churches right to not perform their wedding ceremonies.

You want to show me one case where "activist" judges' ruled on something that wasn't at least a little iffy whether about whether what they ruled on was unconstitutional or not, or where what they ruled on was so opposed by most of the population, that anyone and everyone would be calling foul? At least 95% of people (probably more) would agree that churches have a right to not perform weddings that the church does not approve of. No other issue that these so called "activist" judges ruled on would have such numbers.

If it were the case that judges could completely disregard the Constitution, then what would keep them from just disregarding the Constitution on anything. Such an argument could easily be used to say that judges could rule at any time to strike down beastiality laws, age of consent laws, pretty much any laws could be struck down if judges are all likely to go against the Constitution.


Besides the original argument was that there would be support from gays for such a thing. Without support, an issue does not go far.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.

The state is the overall authority over marriage. . . everything else is *up to you - your choice*

You go to the registrar's office (or what have you - it's different everywhere you go). You file your fee - they process your personal info and certify your marriage certificate.

You have choices, then, of who will do your "ceremony" (which, technically, is just signing the paper to certify you were unified): Justice of the peace, a reverend or someone else who's been sanctioned to perform ceremonies (there's a huge variety) - but ultimately the person who signs the line doesn't have to be a religious leader at all (as would be a Justice of the Peace - or as my husband and I married: ceremoniously by a non-religious unifier)

Since there is a vast VARIETY of people to choose from for performing a unification - I don't believe anyone should be FORCED to wed someone they don't *want* to wed.

If a Pharmacist doesn't *have* to dispense certain medications (like certain birth-control pills) *because* of religious beliefs then ministers, etc, shouldn't *have* to unify a couple for whatever personal reason they have if it's in conflict with their espoused religious beliefs.

 

[Kal'Stang]

forcing churches to wed same sex couples is like forcing the WNBA to allow male players or forcing the united negro college fund to give scholarships to white kids.

The WNBA or UNC are not even close to being in the same league as religion. Religion and most (not all) of their practices are protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution. The There is no such protection for the WNBA or UNC. In fact I would suggest that by not allowing males to play in the WNBA they are being sexist and by not giving scholarships to white kids the UNC is being racist. Both of which is against the Constitution.

 

[samsmart]

There have been accusations that if same sex couples are allowed to wed that gays will then insist and eventually win the right to be wed by religious leaders and in churches that wouldn't approve.

Now most people realize that this is obviously a ridiculous argument and against freedom of religion, but let's see how many might actually support this.

No, they shouldn't. The government should allow gay couples to have legal marriages. Private religious organizations should not in any way be forced to host marriage ceremonies for gay couples.