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"
I thought you were going to disagree. lol I think we probably say a lot of things here we wouldn't in a church setting.
Absolutely. The problem is, this is a public forum, and anyone with internet access has access to it..........
__________________ "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"
So funny that people seem to think, "When it happens in AMERICA, Jesus is coming back!"
It annoys me that people are treating the gay marriage issue as if it a decision about gay people living or being together. Gay people are ALREADY couples. They just don't have any legal standing for legal purposes. IMO, God doesn't care about the legal part; He cares about the sinful part--which is already happening. So what is the big objection to civil unions/gay marriages even accomplishing?
Go out there with your picket lines and object to homosexuals living in the same house and sharing a bedroom--otherwise you just look silly. Signing a piece of paper doesn't do anything to increase the *sin value.*
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
So funny that people seem to think, "When it happens in AMERICA, Jesus is coming back!"
It annoys me that people are treating the gay marriage issue as if it a decision about gay people living or being together. Gay people are ALREADY couples. They just don't have any legal standing for legal purposes. IMO, God doesn't care about the legal part; He cares about the sinful part--which is already happening. So what is the big objection to civil unions/gay marriages even accomplishing?
Go out there with your picket lines and object to homosexuals living in the same house and sharing a bedroom--otherwise you just look silly. Signing a piece of paper doesn't do anything to increase the *sin value.*
IMO, there is no such thing as a 'gay' right. People with same-sex attraction have human rights just like the rest of us. They also have civil rights, as should every legitimate American. Sodomy is NOT one of those rights. It is a behavior, not a trait or characteristic.
I agree with Newt Gingrich that gay people have rights under our Constitution and so does the church, neither should infringe on the other.
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!
IMO, there is no such thing as a 'gay' right. People with same-sex attraction have human rights just like the rest of us. They also have civil rights, as should every legitimate American. Sodomy is NOT one of those rights. It is a behavior, not a trait or characteristic.
I agree with Newt Gingrich that gay people have rights under our Constitution and so does the church, neither should infringe on the other.
Right, and sodomy isn't illegal in this country and homosexuals (and some straight couples) already practice that. Objecting to gay marriage doesn't stop that from happening.
The real problem here is that the church and state have gotten tangled up on the marriage issue. Religious covenants of marriage should be the domain of the church; legal unions and household sharing should be a government issue, IMO.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
I hate to say it, but Revelry, you are ignorant of current events, or you do not understand what they mean. In Arizona, the courts are deciding whether ot not an individual can refuse to photogragh a gay commitment ceremony due to religious reasons. The local courts were against her.
In Colorado, a baker refused to bake a cake for a lesbian commitment ceremony. They are now fighting for their right to live their religious beliefs. I believe that there is a similar case in Washington. Where is the protection of their liberty to offer the services that they will to whom they will? Their cities are calling a hate crime to refuse service based on LGBT status.
Hutchinson, Kansas passed an ordinance that any religious organization, that allowed the public who were not members of the congregation to utilize their facilities could not then use religious objections to prevent gay couples from using their facilities for their purposes. Where is the protection for religious objection?
People like you have from the beginning denied that the homosexual movement had a long term agenda that it was progressing toward. When requested acceptance we said they would want approval next. So it was. When they asked for adoption, we said that marriage was on the agenda. They asked for civil unions, you said that they would stop there, yet within 18 months, they were pushing gay marriage. When we said that when they got gay marriage they would want those who disappove to participate, you said it would be impossible. Well, the last bar that remains is to force uncooperative churches into compliane. How many ways do you think that they have co make that attempt? They have the courts and all of the power of the federal government and both major political parties behind them.
We are now told that we have freedom of worship, but that is a far cry from freedom of religion. The federal government is even beginning to decide what a church may or may not believe. If you do not believeme, start listening to what the president and his staff are really saying, and what it is they are not.
Once again I ask, where is the religious liberty again?
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
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.
Right, and sodomy isn't illegal in this country and homosexuals (and some straight couples) already practice that. Objecting to gay marriage doesn't stop that from happening.
The real problem here is that the church and state have gotten tangled up on the marriage issue. Religious covenants of marriage should be the domain of the church; legal unions and household sharing should be a government issue, IMO.
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.
Linear Mode
