Gay Marriage = Religious Freedom

  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Apr 15, 2009 7:57 PM GMT
    A couple months ago someone posted my "Christian Bashing vs. Gay Bashing" video on the forums and it generated huge controversy before I even knew it was posted (some people inexplicably thought I was an anti-Christian bigot; apparently in their eyes, ANY criticism of ANY Christian sub-group is an attack on all of Christianity).

    Anyway, I've got another video finished and figured I'd post it myself to see if anyone cared.

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

    Apr 15, 2009 8:00 PM GMT
    ups me your voice.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 15, 2009 11:00 PM GMT
    I think gay marriage is a threat to churches though, at least the ant-gay ones, because if a state requires that a marriage be solemnized by an officially recognized person or body, and that person/body happens to be a church that discriminates against gays, then that is a violation of the states anti-discrimination policies (if they have on in regard to sexual orientation).

    The problem is that states should not be recognizing the religious solemnizing of marriages to begin with. If they didn't do that, then there would be no threat, but as long as churches or some other religious body are performing a function of the state (like solemnizing marriages), then I don't see how they cannot be subject to anit-discrimination polices of the state as well, regardless of what it says in some law or constitution that they don't have to, there is a conflict there that must be resolved.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Apr 15, 2009 11:47 PM GMT
    Anto saidI think gay marriage is a threat to churches though, at least the ant-gay ones, because if a state requires that a marriage be solemnized by an officially recognized person or body, and that person/body happens to be a church that discriminates against gays, then that is a violation of the states anti-discrimination policies (if they have on in regard to sexual orientation).


    That's a common misconception. Churches simply are not required to perform marriages. They can, for example, refuse to marry interracial couples if it goes against their beliefs. And they can certainly choose not to marry people of other faiths, even though that goes against religious discrimination laws.

    So...no, no, no.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Apr 15, 2009 11:55 PM GMT
    Wow, intelligent, handsome and a wonderful voice. You're a total catch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 12:14 AM GMT
    Squarejaw said
    Anto saidI think gay marriage is a threat to churches though, at least the ant-gay ones, because if a state requires that a marriage be solemnized by an officially recognized person or body, and that person/body happens to be a church that discriminates against gays, then that is a violation of the states anti-discrimination policies (if they have on in regard to sexual orientation).


    That's a common misconception. Churches simply are not required to perform marriages. They can, for example, refuse to marry interracial couples if it goes against their beliefs. And they can certainly choose not to marry people of other faiths, even though that goes against religious discrimination laws.

    So...no, no, no.


    this is correct square jaw though they will likely lose there tax exempt status which is something they should lose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 12:14 AM GMT
    Why is it called gay marriage, and not just marriage?

    Calling it gay marriage, already makes it something diffrent. So if you don't care to have something diffrent, why not settle for commitment ceremonies?

    If two guys asked me to go to their wedding. I would not be telling people I'm going to a gay wedding!

    I would say: I going to a wedding!!

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

    Apr 16, 2009 12:17 AM GMT
    Excellent job Squarejaw! Thanks for putting it out there for everone to see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 12:46 AM GMT
    Really good video, very informative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 2:01 AM GMT



    Right on, Squarejaw. 100% accurate and no you're not bashing christians (of which I am one) but showing that Hate uses the robe of organized religion to persecute others. (Any intelligent christian knows this)

    I sure hope your video is played to audiences where it can do some good!

    This is the case in Canada. No church is required to marry any gay person - that's the job of government.

    The idea that marriage is religious or sacred will offend any straight atheist, as it should. If governments were to get out of the marriage business, what will happen to them? Marriage only for religious people? ROFLAO.

    10 out of 10 for your vid!

    -Doug of meninlove

    PS we did have a case here where a marriage commissionaire (like a JP) refused to marry two guys on the grounds of his religion. The government and courts answer was that the commissionaire was hired to do a government function and any personal beliefs were to be checked at the door. He was to quit and join a church (if they would even have him to do marriages) or just shut up.
    Now he and two others are trying to sue the Saskatchewan government for not having the option for a commissionaire to refer gays to someone else (another commissionaire) as they can do in seven other provinces. Heh, we do in fact agree with the idiot. It would be awful to be married by someone who hates your guts. What he doesn't realize (none of the haters do) is that gays are NOT born from a vacuum. They have families, extended families, friends etc that will all boycott the services of this idiot. No wedding no $$$.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 16, 2009 2:54 AM GMT
    That's a common misconception. Churches simply are not required to perform marriages. They can, for example, refuse to marry interracial couples if it goes against their beliefs. And they can certainly choose not to marry people of other faiths, even though that goes against religious discrimination laws.So...no, no, no.

    It's not a matter of if they are required to perform marriages or not. It's a matter of being discriminatory when they are being officiates of the state in regard to a state function, marriage solemnization.

    Churches should be sued and not allowed to discriminate when they are functioning as an officiate of the state. I know people think it can't happen but it will because it's a violation of principle in regard to state anti-discrimination laws. It's just that right now people are tolerating this kind of transgression, the same way blocking gay marriage was tolerated, or interracial marriages, or women voting, or interfaith marriages, discrimination in housing/employment/work, etc.

    The way to solve it is for the state/government to not recognize religious leaders and institutions in regard to the solemnizing of state recognized marriages. That's not being anti-religion or church at all, in fact it is protecting it because it is taking religion out of the matters of state so they, for example, won't have problems like this.

    Either churches will have to solemnize any marriage that is recognized by the state OR they will be removed as people/groups that can be officiates of the state in that regard. I think the latter option is the right one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 3:09 AM GMT
    damn, boo! you just performed a perfect "SHUT. IT. DOWN." bravo
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 3:15 AM GMT


    Hey Anto, I think that the right to refuse is OK, and better than the hapless couple ending up being presided over by someone that hates them. In BC a commissionaire has that right if they feel performing any wedding violates their religious belief etc. They're supposed to refer you to one that will. As it would happen, the ones that do marry gays get all the business, the ones that won't get ostracized by the couple's families friends etc and their word of mouth travels fast.

    Getting our right to marry didn't involve removing 'the church's' right to not get involved. They're performing this solemnization for those of their faith. We leave them be, as we would like to be left to be.


    regards! -Doug

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

    Apr 16, 2009 3:23 AM GMT
    I think you covered that pretty well. I am glad you point out the obvious problem with the state validating certain churches marriage ceremonies over others thus violating separation of church and state.

    I find it Ironic also that one of those churches supporting same sex marriage (The Universalists ..) is descended from the church of founding fathers such as John Adams - is now "out of favor" with the state compared to others
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 16, 2009 5:03 AM GMT
    Hey Anto, I think that the right to refuse is OK, and better than the hapless couple ending up being presided over by someone that hates them.

    That doesn't matter though. A person working for the state that solemnizes a wedding may disagree with or hate gay marriage. Or the person that gives out the license may not personally like it but it doesn't matter.

    What should happen, and will eventually I think, is that the church will be taken out of the whole process all together, which it should be to begin with. Separation of church and state right?

    It's not separation of church and state when churches are officiating for the state and even worse, being allowed to discriminate on a matter of civil service for religious reasons.

    I think churches that are anti-gay have a valid point in what they fear about having to 'validate' gay marriages. As a representative of the state, how can they not validate it? If the state can't discriminate for reasons of equality in their laws and constitution, how can a church discriminate when it's functioning as an officiate of state governed by such laws and principles?

    People might be able to shrug it off for now, but I don't see how it can continue in the future under strict scrutiny.