Jay Michaelson puts it cogently...

Quote :

"One thing we've learned is that a lot of Minnesotans (and Marylanders, Washingtonians and Mainers) are sincere in supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians and simultaneously sincere in their misgivings about same-sex marriage. Yes, there are absolutely-sure people on both sides, but there are also a lot of people sincerely in the middle. ... I know plenty of people who are sincerely concerned about the consequences of same-sex marriage for their communities and their values -- and some of them are my friends. ... 1. Your church will never have to hold any kind of wedding it doesn't want to. Polls have told us that the number-one concern of "undecideds" is that their church, pastor, minister or rabbi would have to officiate a gay wedding if marriage equality passed. Let me be clear as a lawyer and a religious leader: This is absolutely 100-percent false. In every state with same-sex marriage, there are "ministerial exemptions" and other protections that ensure that this will never, ever happen. There's also the U.S. Constitution. The exact boundaries of the First Amendment have been debated since it was passed 223 years ago, but every justice on the Supreme Court, and every judge on every federal court, agrees that no church can be compelled to solemnize a wedding (or baptism, or funeral) that it finds religiously objectionable. It's way, way beyond the pale of the law."

Read the rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-michaelson/straight-talk-about-gay-marriage-4-points-for-undecided-voters-to-consider_b_2047589.html

11/2/2012 12:41:21 AM

The idea that there are no consequences for ministers or churches is absurd and disingenuous.

Forced to perform the ceremony? Not yet.

For now, it's just:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/12/29/illinois-catholic-charities-close-rather-than-allow-same-sex-couples-adopt-children/Km9RBLkpKzABNLJbUGhvJM/story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gallaudets-mistake/2012/10/13/86dbad96-148e-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/14/20060314-010603-3657r/

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/15/1015561/pennsylvania-legislator-introduces-ex-gay-therapy-ban-for-minors/

Soon enough it will be:

- You can't adopt a kid without affirming your support for gay marriage and homosexuality, because the kid could end up gay and you would not be a fit parent.

- Religious colleges and universities getting in trouble for offering housing assistance to some married couples, but not other 'married' couples. Same goes with employment law and not hiring someone based on their 'marital' status.

- Religious organizations like the YMCA will be forced to offer 'family' memberships to those defined as such by law.

- Counselors, therapists, psychologists, etc. will have licenses revoked for not working with same sex couples, or for giving them the wrong advice if it doesn't affirm them properly.

The list goes on and on and on. There is a reason people are fighting hard for gay marriage, and it's not because they just want to have their feelings affirmed by the government, or feel a sense of 'equality.'

They want it because they know that there are huge social benefits to that status - benefits that necessarily exist only when institutional and personal freedom to deny them such benefits is prohibited. Any religious person working in any way, shape, or form, with the state will face penalties and censure all over the place, just as people face that now if they had other policies that don't recognize 'equality' where the government has declared it.

All these appeals about hospital visitation and everything else necessarily implies an imposition on religious liberty. In that case, a medical facility run by a religious group would be forced to treat you as married, or face consequences.

Argue for it all day long on the grounds that it is the right thing to do. But don't be so intellectually dishonest as to say it happens without serious consequences all over religious communities, individuals, and organizations. It just ain't so.

*And to answer the one you mention - I could very easily see a state revoking someone's right to solemnize any legal marriages if they refuse to solemnize all legal marriages. Town clerks and justices of the peace have already been fired over this. The step between that and a random minister isn't that far.


[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 5:52 AM. Reason : a]

11/2/2012 5:44:45 AM

Can a church today refuse to marry a straight couple?

11/2/2012 7:21:55 AM

good post by tuliplvr

11/2/2012 7:29:35 AM

^ I agree, it is very challenging to defend such a difficult position, and that was spectacular.

Nonetheless, the argument still stands that "if we will force a church to marry a black couple against their beliefs, we should for gays too". Do we force churches with racism printed in their holy book (Christianity, etc) to marry couples they don't want to marry? I don't know if we do or not.

11/2/2012 8:10:56 AM

Yeah, slippery slope arguments and bombing a thread with op eds is so spectacular.

Quote :

"Argue for it all day long on the grounds that it is the right thing to do. But don't be so intellectually dishonest as to say it happens without serious consequences all over religious communities, individuals, and organizations. It just ain't so."

Sorry if I don't take your "right to discriminate because of scrolls from ancient Palestine" seriously. Would it be cool if it was a Muslim majority trying to institute Sharia? By opposing the institution of their justice system, you would be impinging on their religious liberties. There would be "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" for their religion if you continued your heathen ways.

Quote :

"Town clerks and justices of the peace have already been fired over this. The step between that and a random minister isn't that far."

A public official is held to the Constitution and you're complaining?



[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2012 9:22:04 AM

First link: TULIPlover missed that day in church when they talked about how a church isn't made of bricks, its made of people. (and also retreat centers aren't churches)

Second link: They chose to close, no one forced them to. If you want state money, you have to follow state requirements for that money.

Third link: Private university

Fourth link: Again, they are choosing to close because they value bigotry over children. No one is forcing them to close.

Fifth link: It prohibits licensed mental health facilities from doing something harmful. It doesn't stop a church from wrongfully trying to convince people they can pray away the gay.

The first amendment protection is a shield and not a sword. Your religious institutions do not get to force others to live by your bigoted morals. If a religious organization wants to accept tax credits and state or federal money, they have to live by the laws and freedoms granted by the constitution.

11/2/2012 9:26:03 AM

Lets take a look at this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on :

The ruling was based on the fact the the facility would allow non-Christians access to the use facility for marriage and thus could not use doctrinal limitations as a reasoning in this case. At the time it was also under a local property tax exemption which legally required equal access.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/12/29/illinois-catholic-charities-close-rather-than-allow-same-sex-couples-adopt-children/Km9RBLkpKzABNLJbUGhvJM/story.html

State funded Charities chose to close rather then allow same-sex couples to adopt. This is pretty clear, if you are publicly funded you can discriminate. It no differant than when publicly funded groups had to stop denying service to non-whites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gallaudets-mistake/2012/10/13/86dbad96-148e-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html

This is just bureacracy at non-work.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/14/20060314-010603-3657r/

Charities chose to close rather then allow same-sex couples to adopt. You understand that this is a problem with the 'charities' and not with same-sex couples right. This is almost like blame a black guy for you being racist. (Note: this is a draw a parallel i am not calling anyone racist)

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/15/1015561/pennsylvania-legislator-introduces-ex-gay-therapy-ban-for-minors/

"State legislator introduces ban on fraud to minor"


You wanna try a single real issue here


and Mrfrog. Most churches require you to be a member to be married there and everyone seems to be fine with that. A lot of them require pre-marriage counseling with there pastors to get approval to be married at the church.

11/2/2012 9:47:16 AM

Quote :

" This is pretty clear, if you are publicly funded you can discriminate. "

lol

possibly.

11/2/2012 10:17:53 AM

pretty sure that's a typo.

11/2/2012 10:19:39 AM

been more than 30 so

*can't

Happy now

11/2/2012 10:23:39 AM

Ban all Abrahamic cavemen religions forever

11/2/2012 10:30:57 AM

Quote :

"Can a church today refuse to marry a straight couple? "

Yes. At least I've seen this in the Jewish community.

11/5/2012 3:16:26 AM

Yes, of course they can

11/5/2012 6:41:22 AM

Quote :

"Town clerks and justices of the peace have already been fired over this. The step between that and a random minister isn't that far."

disco_stu has already covered this, but such a step really is far, stepping all the way over the First Amendment.

Protip: Any marriage in the United States does need to go through a civil official such as a justice of the peace, even if officiated by a minister, and even if such civil official is never seen during the ceremony.

11/5/2012 6:23:31 PM

Quote :

"Nonetheless, the argument still stands that "if we will force a church to marry a black couple against their beliefs, we should for gays too". Do we force churches with racism printed in their holy book (Christianity, etc) to marry couples they don't want to marry?"

What part of "Congress shall pass no law" do you not comprehend? You are honestly arguing that we should be able to force a religious institution to perform a religious ceremony or allow a religious ceremony on its premises against its wishes? This is fucking 1st Amendment 101, here.

11/6/2012 9:43:29 PM

Churches aren't forced to marry anyone

11/6/2012 9:57:24 PM

i'm proud to have been one of the 52% of maryland that voted to pass same sex marriage in the state. the elected officials initially passed it into law, people protested, petitions were signed, and a public vote confirmed it

a win for equal rights

11/7/2012 12:34:25 AM

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

11/7/2012 1:00:36 AM

that's a lot of teal deer, but judging by your first post in the thread, I'mma gonna go ahead and

[Edited on November 7, 2012 at 1:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2012 1:13:50 AM