Is it possible that a lot of people think legalized gay marriage means forcing all ch

[Carol]

link

If religious institutions can be forced to provide birth control then they can be forced to marry gay people under the guise of "equality".

This is what the activists want, but they usually won't say so because they know that it will put more people against gay marriage. One step at a time.....

ixote1818 (15,674 posts)

Is it possible that a lot of people think legalized gay marriage means forcing all churches

to comply with it? I was just on a discussion on Facebook and pointed out that marriage throughout history has been more a legal binding of two people by the state for any number of reasons from family status, to love to financial reasons etc. I then pointed out that even if the state legalized gay marriage if they wanted to get married in a religious ceremony they would have to find a church that allows gay marriage like the Unitarians.

To my surprise the person had no problem with this as if he simply thought gay marriage was the state telling churches they had to accept gay marriage.

Perhaps democratic politicians need to do a better job educating the public that gay marriage will not force churches to comply and that it is strictly allowing gay people to marry under the states laws.

Thoughts?

Star Member Ruby the Liberal (16,925 posts)
1. That is how it has been spun.

I won't go into detail of yet another Thanksgiving dinner with my family, but in 2011, this (of course) came up.

When I asked how anti-gay-marriage people were going to be affected by gay marriage - that was the only argument I got. That they would be forced to have gay marriage in churches.

It took me about a week to reengage my jaw from resting on my chest.

etherealtruth (6,823 posts)
2. Not only possible ... but probable

Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 12:20 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
The religiously insane right wing nut jobs have a tendency to repeat this talking point.

Its wholly ridiculous ... illogical ...etc; however, the target audience is not know for their critical thinking skills

Initech (31,833 posts)
5. I think the only way churches would listen is if their tax exempt status started getting revoked.

Their preaching has become nothing more than a political tool for the GOP - the fact that Ted Haggard sat on a weekly meeting with Bush is scary to say the least. Look at that asshole in North Carolina - he flat out openly encouraged violence against gay people and it was quite disturbing to say the least, I think the only way they would listen would be to make 'em pay taxes - you want to preach politics? Fine, you pay like the rest of us. Until then fuck off.

Star Member MineralMan (43,408 posts)
12. Besides, why would anyone think a same-sex couple would

want to get married by some minister who thought it was wrong? The logic of all of this is way off kilter. It's just a propaganda move by the right.

Why do gay people insist on taking communion when the church says it's wrong to take communion flaunting being gay?

Why do they disrupt church services displaying the rainbow flag and creating a scene in Catholic Churches?

If they do this when the church doesn't want them to, they'll force churches to marry them.

It's all about POWER. And forcing everyone to see them as "normal". To not only accept them and tolerate them but celebrate their sin.

Star Member rurallib (28,002 posts)
22. No, I think people fear they will be forced to marry someone of their own sex

I actually ran across a guy who believed that 4 years ago.

[Novaheart]

If religious institutions can be forced to provide birth control then they can be forced to marry gay people under the guise of "equality".

Religious institutions were/are not being forced to provide birth control. Group medical plans were/are required to provide certain coverages. Religious institutions were exempt from the regulations being applicable to clergy, on all other matters they would be treated as any other employer (which other than being tax exempt they are).

In any event, to date no Catholic Church, or any church, has been forced to perform a marriage which is inconsistent with their beliefs. It isn't being proposed. It is not a natural and predictable result of anything in play. It's not a stated objective. In short, it's bullshit.

This is what the activists want, but they usually won't say so because they know that it will put more people against gay marriage. One step at a time..... .

According to whom? Your magic ball? Your overactive imagination? Most gay activists don't give a rat's patoot about churches as long as they stay out of politics and efforts to deprive gay people of their rights. We have our own church if we want to worship Asian desert gods.

Why do gay people insist on taking communion when the church says it's wrong to take communion flaunting being gay? .

Some people feel an ownership interest in the churches they were born into. I don't see a lot of point in it, but change has come from within the church in the past.

Why do they disrupt church services displaying the rainbow flag and creating a scene in Catholic Churches?

Usually because the church has promoted hate or discrimination, or meddled in the political process to generate hate and discrimination.

If they do this when the church doesn't want them to, they'll force churches to marry them.

Leap.

[Carol]

Some people feel an ownership interest in the churches they were born into. I don't see a lot of point in it, but change has come from within the church in the past.

Usually because the church has promoted hate or discrimination, or meddled in the political process to generate hate and discrimination.

In other words.........when the time is right..............gay activists will declare that the church is exhibiting hate and discrimination and that they need to be forced to marry gay people.

You prove my point.

[NJCardFan]

There is already precedent for this. A photographer in New Mexico refused to take a lesbian couple's request that they photograph their gay wedding due to their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued and won. Where is the freedom to not believe in a particular lifestyle? I'm quite sure that this wasn't the only photographer in Albuquerque but this couple chose them just to stir the shitstorm and got what they wanted. So it's conceivable that churches will be sued into performing these ceremonies.

[Novaheart]

There is already precedent for this. A photographer in New Mexico refused to take a lesbian couple's request that they photograph their gay wedding due to their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued and won. Where is the freedom to not believe in a particular lifestyle? I'm quite sure that this wasn't the only photographer in Albuquerque but this couple chose them just to stir the shitstorm and got what they wanted. So it's conceivable that churches will be sued into performing these ceremonies.

The ruling against the photographer was based on the commission and the court's assessment that it was a business and a public accommodation. A church is not a public accommodation. Which does not mean that a church cannot own and operate a public accommodation which would indeed be covered under the Civil Rights Act. A church cannot operate a McDonald's but claim that it's a food ministry and protected under their exemptions from the Civil Rights Act, ADA, and labor law.

BTW, I disagree with the ruling against the photographer. I would say that to be a public accommodation you have to have a "fixed place of business" or a "normal place of business". It's a stretch to call a personal service like photography or housekeeping a business. It's a personal service. If you have a storefront, then it should be covered. I actually don't support the whole idea of public accommodations law because I think it violates my right to freedom of association, and as I get old the more I choose to exercise that. But it is what it is, and as long as we have it it has to be equally applied.

[noonwitch]

No church today is forced to marry any straight couples, even though straight couples have the right to get married. A catholic church is free to refuse to marry non-catholics, an individual church is free to only offer marriage to it's members, etc.

A government official who has the power to marry people cannot deny a couple who meets legal eligibility requirements. So as it stands now, John and Marsha can't sue St. Mary's Church if that church denies them a marriage ceremony because they are not catholic. Justice of the Peace Smith can't deny them the marriage because he is a government official.

If any laws allowing gay marriage are passed, the law just has to address the separation of government from church in a similar way. If not, the churches can still deny membership to people who are practicing gays, thus deny the marriage based on the membership issue.

[txradioguy]

No church today is forced to marry any straight couples, even though straight couples have the right to get married. A catholic church is free to refuse to marry non-catholics, an individual church is free to only offer marriage to it's members, etc.

A government official who has the power to marry people cannot deny a couple who meets legal eligibility requirements. So as it stands now, John and Marsha can't sue St. Mary's Church if that church denies them a marriage ceremony because they are not catholic. Justice of the Peace Smith can't deny them the marriage because he is a government official.

If any laws allowing gay marriage are passed, the law just has to address the separation of government from church in a similar way. If not, the churches can still deny membership to people who are practicing gays, thus deny the marriage based on the membership issue.

And the first church that refuses a gay couple that wants to get married...what do you think is going to happen to them?

Anyone here who thinks that the churches won't be forced to marry gay couples is either a fool...an imbecile or both.

[Gina]

Hawaiian Churches Denied Request to Block Same-Sex Civil Unions

“Still, left as written, this sweeping new civil unions law does place churches, mosques and synagogues in the crosshairs of the homosexual activist political lobby. It has been reported that homosexual pairs have already filed complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission against churches and houses of worship in the past year ‘for refusing to rent their facilities for same-sex unions and/or marriage ceremonies.’”

“At some point,” he added, “a lawsuit will be filed or the Commission will make a ruling on the complaints. When that happens, it is likely that the case would be considered ripe for adjudication.”

Barber also contended that the plaintiffs had a warranted concern, despite Seabright’s opinion that the churches’ request was “unjustified.”

“We know that in states like New Jersey and elsewhere, similar complaints have resulted in churches being forced to allow counter-biblical ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies to be held on their private property under penalty of law. This is clearly an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.”

“It is my belief that this is by design,” the attorney revealed. “Homosexual pressure groups and individual activists are not happy with mere ‘tolerance’ for their lifestyle choices and behaviors. They demand that all of society fully affirm homosexual conduct under penalty of law. Religious faith traditions that recognize homosexual behavior as sin are not exempted from these demands.”

[Novaheart]

By Eryn Sun , Christian Post Reporter
January 4, 2012|10:21 pm
Two churches in Hawaii were denied a petition for a restraining order to block a new state law that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.

They were denied a petition to block same sex civil unions that had nothing to do with the churches who brought the petition.


The Emmanuel Temple House of Praise and Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God believe that the law, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2012, violates their civil rights and constitutional protections for religious freedom, the Court News Service reported.

This is the moral equivalent of the Aryan Nations claiming that interracial marriage violates their rights.


They argued that they would face sexual-discrimination claims, civil penalties and fines if they refused to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple on church grounds.

A hypothetical scenario for which they had no standing, and for which there is no support.

Though the new law exempted clergy from performing the ceremonies, it did not allow churches the right to refuse the use of their property for same-sex civil unions.


The new law exempted the clergy from performing the ceremonies. No law is going to exempt all church property from public accommodations laws. There are churches which own hotels, apartment buildings, amusement parks, restaurants, etc...

Despite their attempts to secure a restraining order, however, U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright denied their request, stating that there was no “realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury under the statute.”

Like us on Facebook

No.

Responding to the decision, Matt Barber, constitutional attorney and vice president of Liberty Counsel Action,

This is how you should have known it was bullshit.

told The Christian Post, “Judge Seabright did not address the merits of the case and denied the preliminary injunction because he felt church representatives did not yet have standing. He wrote, ‘A couple would have to ask, they would have to be denied, and they would then have to file suit,’ if a church refused to accommodate a request to hold a civil union ceremony.”

“Still, left as written, this sweeping new civil unions law does place churches, mosques and synagogues in the crosshairs of the homosexual activist political lobby. It has been reported that homosexual pairs have already filed complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission against churches and houses of worship in the past year ‘for refusing to rent their facilities for same-sex unions and/or marriage ceremonies.’”

It's rather difficult to argue with a nonpoint. He doesn't offer us an example to dispute. He usually likes to point to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, but perhaps even Barbet finally understands what that was about. As for filing lawsuits, people file frivolous lawsuits all the time- Barber himself is habitual in that pastime.

“At some point,” he added, “a lawsuit will be filed or the Commission will make a ruling on the complaints. When that happens, it is likely that the case would be considered ripe for adjudication.”


Babble

Barber also contended that the plaintiffs had a warranted concern, despite Seabright’s opinion that the churches’ request was “unjustified.”

“We know that in states like New Jersey and elsewhere, similar complaints have resulted in churches being forced to allow counter-biblical ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies to be held on their private property under penalty of law. This is clearly an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.”

See, Barber is a lying sack of shit. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association agreed to make their boardwalk pavilion available to the public (long before gay marriage was an issue) as a condition of keeping it tax exempt. It was not a church, is not a church, and was operated as a public accommodation. You cannot have it both ways in public accommodation whether you are a church or a country club.

“It is my belief that this is by design,” the attorney revealed. “Homosexual pressure groups and individual activists are not happy with mere ‘tolerance’ for their lifestyle choices and behaviors. They demand that all of society fully affirm homosexual conduct under penalty of law. Religious faith traditions that recognize homosexual behavior as sin are not exempted from these demands.”

“For this law – and others similar to it – to pass constitutional muster, it is critical that churches, businesses and individuals with a moral objection to homosexual conduct be exempted from these overreaching kinds of ‘sexual orientation’ dictates,” Barber concluded.

The church is exempt from having to perform gay marriages, or any marriage they don't approve of. What they can't do is operate a for-profit auditorium open to the public except gay people.

He further commented that “the government has no business putting its official stamp of approval on behaviors considered immoral by the majority of the world population. To force others to the official government line amounts to true discrimination.”


Interesting that Barber appears to consider Islam to be in his camp.