Sueing churches over Gay Marriage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 4:49 PM GMT
    Just a question, relative to a debate I've been involved with on another website.
    A bunch of people on this other website have flamed the living shit out of me for my support of Gay Marriage, claiming that my agreement with the California Supreme Court amounts to a violation of their rights as voters to vote against it. They almost always come back to this point: they feel that as Gay people, we would file a bunch of lawsuits against their churches if those churches refused to marry a Gay couple, which they feel would be an infringement of their rights to believe what they want from a religious standpoint. I even have an argument with a dear personal friend who feels the same way.
    They always seem surprised and nonplussed when I explain to them that not only would I NOT sue any such church, but that I wouldn't even want to be a member of that church should it have such a bigoted position against me as a Gay man. I would go to a church where I was welcome rather than fighting a losing battle, or at least an uphill one, against such a church.
    I don't believe I can force people to like or accept me, any more than I believe suing a church would be in the best interests of anybody.
    It's the old idea of "Don't go where you're not welcome."
    I'd just go where I was welcomed, and everybody would be happy.

    I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 5:01 PM GMT
    here in MA no one has sued any church for to preform a marriage during the past 4 years and over 14,000 couples have been married.

    Their arguement is a stupid one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 5:49 PM GMT
    Their argument is one given to them by the lunatic Right to confuse and inflame the issue.

    Marriage is determined by the individual states, as a matter of civil LAW. If gays want to be legally married, it is state law that must be addressed. If gays are denied the right to marry, it is the state that must be sued in court, on constitutional grounds, as was done in California.

    Religious ministers are specially empowered by the state to perform marriages which are, in reality, both a religious and a state civil act. That's why you must first get a state marriage license, which a duly authorized minister can sign and make legal. But a civil official can be equally empowered, like a Justice of the Peace, for instance.

    On the other hand, someone calling himself a minister, without marriage authority from the state, could perform a religious ceremony, but the marriage would not be legal under state civil law.

    So if the "Church of the Blessed Flock" refused to marry me for some reason, even as a straight couple, I could still be legally married through the state, assuming I met that state's requirements for a marriage.

    Any problem I have with the religious reasons for that Church not marrying me is just that: purely a religious matter, which the courts are unlikely to visit. The right of any church to establish a religious definition of marriage is not threatened.

    This is another phony issue the rabid right throws out to scare and stampede people into voting anti-gay. And to think that some here support these homophobes politically.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 6:08 PM GMT
    I am absolutely amazed how gay marriage has been a wedge issue for the last eight years and so few people actually understand it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 8:12 PM GMT
    That's because the repugnicans don't want them to understand it. Once they understand it, the threat disappears. Repugs are only effective when they can frighten people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 8:41 PM GMT
    As a non religious person, and as a non republican. Yet a pure homosexual, and the only fag in the village with two long term relationships and not just one, or non at all.

    A religion is like a private club, with rules and regulations. Where these rules of no homosexuals have been in place for a very long time.

    It may be a we different if the law passed, and you guys could wed, yet the only place these weddings could be held was a church. But this would not be the case. There are many other choices. Like your own backyard.

    When my second husband had to go home to Russia. I A White Indigenes Aussie. Did not have the same rights as newcomers to Oz, to bring loved ones into Oz, because to deprive them of this right, would be considered inhumane. But life goes on and so have I.

    You can change a law but attitudes will not, do not change overnight either.

    Also you can change a law of the land, yet the religious will look at it, that they are acting on a higher law, and the Law of the Bible will not change.

    It's why I support de-facto recognition. It is not marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, between a man and a women, and not Adam and Steve, yet in would give you the same rights as marriage. Just under a diffrent banner.

    Yes One is a pure homosexual with two long term husbands/ bf's. I once again, are only looking at it from the other side. Something I try to do with many things.

    Oh as a pure homosexual. I have been punished for advocating gay rights in the passed. I've been expelled from school. I've had my hours reduced at work, to force me out. It had to go to Equal Opportunities, where I was too win, and had my hours given back, plus compensation. Been a subject of hate, and abuse for not seemingly seeing things their way, as I have here too. in that gays are equal. Yet I am not a flamer, so my sexuality is not in your face, as soon as I walk into a room. So life would of been much more easy to of said noting; but I'm not very good at that.

    So I have been in lots of trouble in the past for standing for gay issues, and pissing the str8's off. I ponder how many here have?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 8:47 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi saidChurches cannot be legally compelled to marry anyone. They are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    There is no fundamental right to a religious marriage.

    Religions can exclude whomever they want free of intervention from the state.

    The only time religions are subject to certain general laws such as antidiscrimination law is when they are serving nonreligious functions, such as administering state-funded social welfare programs or when they run universities.

    The fact that clergy have the right to officiate at weddings -- which are legal as well as religious ceremonies -- does not mean that they can be compelled to marry people civilly or religiously. In fact, it would violate the federal Constitution to compel clergy to marry anyone.

    So your friends are simply wrong about the law.


    Nicely said.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 01, 2008 9:30 PM GMT
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREA bunch of people on this other website have flamed the living shit out of me for my support of Gay Marriage, claiming that my agreement with the California Supreme Court amounts to a violation of their rights as voters to vote against it.



    Ask if they feel the same way regarding interracial marriages and the supreme courts decision forcing all states to recognize it despite whether voters would approve of it or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2008 9:43 PM GMT
    i think we should sue the adulterating john mccain for not properly protecting the sancticty of marriage.... from his lying self... and might as well include the fornicating bristol palin in the lawsuit as well and her mom that forced a pregnant child into matrimony....icon_rolleyes.gif


  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 01, 2008 9:45 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi said
    ...The only time religions are subject to certain general laws such as antidiscrimination law is when they are serving nonreligious functions...


    But if the state recognizes weddings done by a particular church/leader, wouldn't that be a serving a non-religious function (the civil marriage aspect of it)?

    I can see where that could cause a problem. Why does the state recognize it at all then? It shouldn't otherwise it seems like they could be sued because they may be performing a religious ceremony around it but if in the process a civil marriage in the state's eyes is being officiated, then that seems like there can be conflict there. It seems like this could be an example where government and religion have intertwined but nobody noticed or cared because it was never an issue until possibly now.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 01, 2008 11:03 PM GMT
    Tell them, "What's God's is God's and what's Caesar's is Caesar's."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2008 12:50 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidTell them, "What's God's is God's and what's Caesar's is Caesar's."


    Yes, except even the Scriptures aren't good enough for Republicans. The revised quote is: "What's God's is God's, period. There is no Caesar but God. And we will tell you what God wants."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2008 4:50 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    coolarmydude saidTell them, "What's God's is God's and what's Caesar's is Caesar's."


    Yes, except even the Scriptures aren't good enough for Republicans. The revised quote is: "What's God's is God's, period. There is no Caesar but God. And we will tell you what God wants."


    BINGO!!! Props to Red for tellin' it like it is!!!!

    You might wanna add, "We will tell you what God wants, and by God, you'll like it or else!!!"