Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1236365)

I agree, The whole marriage debate is framed incorrectly in order to cause division.

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is a natural construct ordained by the Author of reality. We CANNOT redefine it. The problem is that in a corporatist/socialist state, marriage is a legal contract created by the state. This should not be. Marriage is defined by God and enacted by the church, not the state. Eliminate the income tax, social(ist) benefits, etc. and the state would have no business with marriage.

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry (Post 1236372)

In the United States, marriage is a legal contract under our system of government. In the past, good religious people have stopped slaves (as property) and interracial couple from marrying. (Do I have to quote the appropriate passage from Loving v. Virginia to show you how the racist judge paraphrased his understanding of the Bible to defend his anti-miscegenation views?) There are plenty of people in this land who get married because of the legal and social benefits and they are NOT DOING IT because your religious belief says so. They should NOT be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs to get married. Those same religious beliefs, I have to tiresomely remind you, kept slaves and people of different races from marrying under the law.

I have no dog in this hunt as I'm not married and don't have any intention of getting married, nor do I get all the goodies from being married. However, my parents' California marriage was illegal in the South until 1967 and I am just a tiny bit sensitive to the fact that Good Christian People have had (and some still do have) a problem with interracial marriage. I'm seeing a tiresome repeat of the discussions that took place when I was a kid. It's too bad we didn't have an Internet then so we could pull up all the sermonizing then about race-mixing and see how it sounds now.

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry (Post 1236372)

In the United States, marriage is a legal contract under our system of government. In the past, good religious people have stopped slaves (as property) and interracial couple from marrying. (Do I have to quote the appropriate passage from Loving v. Virginia to show you how the racist judge paraphrased his understanding of the Bible to defend his anti-miscegenation views?) There are plenty of people in this land who get married because of the legal and social benefits and they are NOT DOING IT because your religious belief says so. They should NOT be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs to get married. Those same religious beliefs, I have to tiresomely remind you, kept slaves and people of different races from marrying under the law.

I have no dog in this hunt as I'm not married and don't have any intention of getting married, nor do I get all the goodies from being married. However, my parents' California marriage was illegal in the South until 1967 and I am just a tiny bit sensitive to the fact that Good Christian People have had (and some still do have) a problem with interracial marriage. I'm seeing a tiresome repeat of the discussions that took place when I was a kid. It's too bad we didn't have an Internet then so we could pull up all the sermonizing then about race-mixing and see how it sounds now.

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry (Post 1236364)

Ferd, as a former attorney, I am going to tell you that no church can be compelled to turn over their property for a use that is inimical to its belief system--in general.

There are exceptions. For example, if the church is renting out a government-owned building for church services, it cannot object if the governmental authority also chooses to rent out to gay and lesbian couples for marriage ceremonies. There could be other governmental entanglements that may oblige a church to allow its property to be used for marriages it objects to. But that's the key--GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENTS. If you don't have government entanglements, you have nothing to worry about.

It would require repealing the First Amendment to get to the point you're talking about. Did you not read the examples I gave? Churches can't be forced to marry interracial couples, or couples who do not meet the ecclesiastical standards set by the church. I live in a city with a Mormon temple; I can't tell the Mormons I want to get married in their temple, it'd absolutely not be allowed since I'm not Mormon.

I don't want to be argumentative about this, but I am tired of these scare stories. If preachers can turn down interracial couples, and all that happens is some (IMHO justified) bad press, the same thing can and will happen with gay marriage. And, to be blunt, we have gay marriage in eight states--can you name a single church where there is no government entanglement that has been forced to perform a gay marriage against its will? Please, bring it forward. I want to see it. I am tired of these rumors and (to be blunt) flat-out lies.

Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1236387)

Sorry SR. but no matter how much legal talkytalk you use, you cannot undo what has already been done. There are dozens of examples of churches/individuals who have refused gay ceremonies that have been successfully sued.

If a church rents to the public, they will not be able to refuse gay couples. period.

Now if they only provide marriage services/access to their building to MEMBERS of the church, or can prove they only perform marriages to those who are adherants to thier particular set of beliefs, I agree they have legal standing to refuse all others.

but open that door one crack, and rent out to some couple who are not christian, and they will never again be able to refuse a gay couple who wishes to rent from them.

That is simple reality. it has already been established in the courts. I dont care how many law degrees you have.

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry (Post 1236389)

Sorry, Ferd, I'm not letting you off the hook. You say there are cases, BRING THEM FORWARD. Don't spread rumor without something to BACK IT UP.

Not cake bakers. Not business people. Churches with their own buildings. And yeah, if the church goes into business** by renting to people outside the church, then yeah, there could be a problem. But let's see the cases, OK?


**And if they're renting the building out to non-members, I hope they're complying with all applicable tax laws in declaring the income, etc., etc. I really got tired of having to pay higher property taxes when I lived in Utah because the dominant religion had so much property off the tax rolls.

Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1236387)

Sorry SR. but no matter how much legal talkytalk you use, you cannot undo what has already been done. There are dozens of examples of churches/individuals who have refused gay ceremonies that have been successfully sued.
If a church rents to the public, they will not be able to refuse gay couples. period.

Now if they only provide marriage services/access to their building to MEMBERS of the church, or can prove they only perform marriages to those who are adherants to thier particular set of beliefs, I agree they have legal standing to refuse all others.

but open that door one crack, and rent out to some couple who are not christian, and they will never again be able to refuse a gay couple who wishes to rent from them.

That is simple reality. it has already been established in the courts. I dont care how many law degrees you have.

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps (Post 1236393)

Ferd,

Can you cite the cases where churches have been successfully sued for refusing to rent their buildings out for gay weddings?

Originally Posted by Jay (Post 1236395)

Hutchinson, Kasnas is a simple one to find, though it was passed by the city counsel and as gay marriage is not legal there, the matter might be sidelined, until the Supreme court overturns the will of the people in those states with bans, and then it is mire than pertainent. Enter 'Hutchinson approves gay' in the search bar, then click on the fox news tab, and it is right there for all to see. I would pozt the link, however I have not figured out the cut and paste process on my nook.

Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1236398)

the one that comes to mind, was a church that had a property they used for weddings. somewhere in CT? I think? they refused a lesbian couple. got sued and had to decide not to rent the property any longer.

I dont even think there is a question here. if the church is acting as a business in renting their location to the public, they wont get a pass on one type of people they disapprove of.

they are only protected if they allow only approved weddings to begin with.

Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1236301)

I have seen quotes that said:

"I live in fear that the world will be distroyed if gays are allowed to marry"

and

"you can go on Twitter and say M S says God hats F**s"

That is a bit different.


Then I read that for YEARS and YEARS she has refused to tell anyone what her own sexual orientation was.... that she has a huge lesbian following, then she shows up in San Fransisco and just gets down right insulting.

She didnt help the cause of Christ. in fact if anything, it was damaging.

It is one thing for people to properly talk about sin, in the setting of a church. It is entirely another to be insulting to people that are lost and in need of salvation.

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps (Post 1236401)

So, not to nitpick, but your statement about "dozens of successful cases" is a slight exaggeration?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1236419)

Oh yea so as long as we can HIDE inside the Church walls its ok to preach against sin! That's typical. I am thankful at least ONCE someone with an entertainment background would at least say SOMETHING about the "lifestyle" being a sin.

Originally Posted by Ferd (Post 1236439)

the dozens include all the businessess we are speaking of.

my point is that when a church does things that are service business orenited they loose any protection.

I think our resident former lawyer will agree.


(before we get further into this, I do not take the position of opposing gay marriage. in fact, I oppose government involvement in marriage in total.)