My problem with Michelle Shocked is this: She lied about the law.
Even if gay marriage is legal tomorrow in all 50 states, NO minister (as in NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA) will have to perform a gay marriage if he/she doesn't want to.
Period.
It is a LIE to say otherwise.
After all, it's perfectly legal for a minister to decline to marry an interracial heterosexual couple. Of course, that's likely to get the minister some bad publicity, but it's not illegal to tell the couple no. I think that's happened within the last year, even.
The Catholic church regularly tells heterosexual couples it won't marry them because they're living together, one party is divorced and hasn't had the marriage annulled, or there's some other impediment to the marriage. I remember a couple of decades back, a Catholic priest took a lot of heat for refusing to marry a paraplegic man to a woman, because he wasn't going to be able to produce children. It was an obnoxious decision, but it certainly wasn't illegal.
You can be against gay marriage, but PLEASE, do not lie about the implications of same in the law. Preachers are not going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
N.B. This does not mean, if you hold a government office that involves issuing marriage licenses, that you're going to be able to get out of issuing licenses for otherwise legally-qualified people. You're working for the government, you are a representative of the government, and if you're intransigent about it, you'll likely lose your job. I wonder how many people quit or gutted it up after 1967 when the Supreme Court said that interracial couples could get married in every state in the Union?
(I'm also reminded in the slavery-owning South, African-American slave couples could not get legally married because they were property. It was only with emancipation that their marriages became legal. I have to wonder how many county registers gritted their teeth as former property came through and got licenses to marry?)
As for Michelle Shocked, I saw her once in Kerrville, Texas, back in the early 90s and hadn't thought or heard about her for years. As far as I'm concerned, lying about the implications of the law is a bad witness for Jesus. Bad, Michelle, bad.
Just for the record, she didn't say it WAS the law, she said that if it ever became the law, then Jesus would return.......
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Just for the record, she didn't say it WAS the law, she said that if it ever became the law, then Jesus would return.......
Won't happen, because we do have that pesky** First Amendment which protects ministers' rights to practice their religious rites (i.e., performing a marriage) without interference from the government.
**not really. We could be in France, where there is an official state policy of secularism and everything else is subsumed to it.
Won't happen, because we do have that pesky** First Amendment which protects ministers' rights to practice their religious rites (i.e., performing a marriage) without interference from the government.
**not really. We could be in France, where there is an official state policy of secularism and everything else is subsumed to it.
You don't have to convince me
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Won't happen, because we do have that pesky** First Amendment which protects ministers' rights to practice their religious rites (i.e., performing a marriage) without interference from the government.
**not really. We could be in France, where there is an official state policy of secularism and everything else is subsumed to it.
What really could happen is a church might get in serious trouble for not letting a gay couple use their church for a wedding, if that church rents the place out to others who are not of their exact faith.
this happens a lot and is a great source of income for a lot of churches. Now if they provide that public service, they will not be able to reject a couple on grounds they dont approve of their being gay.
that CAN certainly happen.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
What really could happen is a church might get in serious trouble for not letting a gay couple use their church for a wedding, if that church rents the place out to others who are not of their exact faith.
this happens a lot and is a great source of income for a lot of churches. Now if they provide that public service, they will not be able to reject a couple on grounds they dont approve of their being gay.
that CAN certainly happen.
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.
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.
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.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
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.
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.
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.
so you arent letting me off the hook but you agree with me so I dont need to give you case law.
geez. I think you like to argue to hear yourself.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
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.
Ferd,
Can you cite the cases where churches have been successfully sued for refusing to rent their buildings out for gay weddings?
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Can you cite the cases where churches have been successfully sued for refusing to rent their buildings out for gay weddings?
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.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Hybrid Mode
