• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if a Minister refuses to perform a gay wedding ceremony?

What if a Minister refuses to perform gay ceremony?

  • Should be allowed to refuse.

    Votes: 69 98.6%

  • Should be forced to perform.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Should be stripped of license.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Should be arrested.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    70
Centrist77 said:
I do and outlawing circumcision along with forcing churches to merry gays will never come to pass.

People will always TRY and back door freedoms, look at all the antiabortion extremist that get laws passed that make abortion almost impossible even though they are legal and a right.

THere will always be nut cases out there but in the end they will lose.

Mark my words churches will never be forced to merry gays, it pure fantasy and a scare tactic and nothing more. CHurches are too well protected and they will remain that way and should.
Click to expand...

Your gratuitous and completely irrelevant shot at me for being ant-abortion is also duly noted. You do realize, the ones your calling nut cases in the context of this thread would be pro gay advocates.
 
X Factor said:
Your gratuitous and completely irrelevant shot at me for being ant-abortion is also duly noted. You do realize, the ones your calling nut cases in the context of this thread would be pro gay advocates.
Click to expand...

Has there even been a case that someone took a religious leader to court for not marrying a same sex couple? I'm just curious. Is there any precedent whatsoever to even speculate about this?
 
Centrist77 said:
REALLY?
it comes up every equal gay rights thread and nobody that I ever seen suggested it was good and in fact it has been the direct opposite. Everybody says the churches are protected by the 1st amendment as they should.
Click to expand...

This is the point I was trying to get across. Very few people are actually giving their personal opinion on whether churches should be forced to perform gay ceremonies. Rather the consensus seems to be that they just won't be. There is a difference.
 
X Factor said:
Your gratuitous and completely irrelevant shot at me for being ant-abortion is also duly noted. You do realize, the ones your calling nut cases in the context of this thread would be pro gay advocates.
Click to expand...

well you totally misunderstood because it wasnt a shot at you at all LMAO
nor did I know you were anti abortion LOL

also I said anti-abortion EXTREMIST, is that you?

thank you for being knee jerk though and Ill accept your apology ;)

and being pro gay rights is never nutty in itself but YES there are EXTREMIST on ever issue and ALL extremists are nut cases :)
 
SPC said:
With Gay marriage now being made legal in 6 states, what should be the reaction to a minister refusing to perform the ceremony?
Click to expand...

Option #2 is interesting. How exactly would a minister be forced to perform the ceremony? Gunpoint...?
 
X Factor said:
This is the point I was trying to get across. Very few people are actually giving their personal opinion on whether churches should be forced to perform gay ceremonies. Rather the consensus seems to be that they just won't be. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

in this thread MAYBE, wasnt keeping track, but in general this red herring always comes up, and in gay rights threads on this forum thats not true, the vast majority mention how they wont and shouldnt
 
1Perry said:
Nor will it ever stand up.
Click to expand...

Only time will tell. Would you have ever expected to hear a Supreme Court Justice suggest that the first amendment may not protect speech based on someone's reaction half a world away?
 
Religious institutions are private organizations, and their employees private employees. They have every right to refuse to perform a marriage for a gay couple. In fact, some refuse to do it on other grounds sometimes, such is previous divorce or simply not agreeing with the union.

Like any other private organization, the only right anyone has to influence that decision is to choose to patron them or not.
 
Cole said:
Option #2 is interesting. How exactly would a minister be forced to perform the ceremony? Gunpoint...?
Click to expand...


I was thinking in terms of someone trying to get a court order forcing them to do so through a lawsuit. Nothing would surprise me with the way liberals have been acting lately.
 
SPC said:
With Gay marriage now being made legal in 6 states, what should be the reaction to a minister refusing to perform the ceremony?
Click to expand...

He can't be forced to perform a wedding ceremony.
 
Centrist77 said:
well you totally misunderstood because it wasnt a shot at you at all LMAO
nor did I know you were anti abortion LOL

also I said anti-abortion EXTREMIST, is that you?
Click to expand...
I've been pretty clear that I believe in legal protection for the pre-born and I support efforts making abortion more difficult to obtain. Isn't that your very definition of extremism?

thank you for being knee jerk though and Ill accept your apology ;)
Click to expand...
I'll believe you if, even after you read what I posted above you still maintain you don't think I'm an extremist. ;)

and being pro gay rights is never nutty in itself but YES there are EXTREMIST on ever issue and ALL extremists are nut cases :)
Click to expand...
I think you only espouse this, "there are extremists on all sides" argument when it's convenient, otherwise I've never seen you lament those pro-choice extremists. LOL
 
CriticalThought said:
Has there even been a case that someone took a religious leader to court for not marrying a same sex couple? I'm just curious. Is there any precedent whatsoever to even speculate about this?
Click to expand...

How could there even be such a suit when SSM is not legally recognized in most states? It's only once it becomes a legal right that someone would even have standing to attempt such a lawsuit.
 
X Factor said:
I've been pretty clear that I believe in legal protection for the pre-born and I support efforts making abortion more difficult to obtain. Isn't that your very definition of extremism?
Click to expand...
you may have been very clear 1000 times in threads but that doesnt mean "I" know them or put you in my mental Rolodex as anti-abortion, lol ? :shurg:

I dont have one, only guy I ever remember is that poster who was a troll and got banned and his name was some play on words, cant remember it now but if I saw it I would.

also it would depend on HOW you want them to be hard to obtain, thats what I would base :my" decision on. Because the fact remains that currently that is impeding and trying to back door peoples rights/freedoms but you may have very reasonable ideas, again I dont know them.

I know I defended you and a thread im not allowed to talk about upstairs ;) lol


X Factor said:
I'll believe you if, even after you read what I posted above you still maintain you don't think I'm an extremist. ;)
Click to expand...

I dont think anything about you on the subject yet, dont know enough info like I said above.

X Factor said:
I think you only espouse this, "there are extremists on all sides" argument when it's convenient, otherwise I've never seen you lament those pro-choice extremists. LOL
Click to expand...

again you would unknowingly be wrong because I always blast extremist, and on this board ive never met a pro-choice extremist, what would that be? how would you define that?

a person who would allow free abortion 24/7 on every corner, at any time, for any reason, even after viability and after its immediately born?

then yes they would DEFINITELY be a nutcase. :D

give me an examples if you have some in mind and Ill answer honestly
 
X Factor said:
How could there even be such a suit when SSM is not legally recognized in most states? It's only once it becomes a legal right that someone would even have standing to attempt such a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

as there ever been a case against a church for not marring any couple?
 
This is not a relevant question. Priests and ministers are already permitted to refuse to perform any and all marriages as they wish. I was married in the Atlanta archdiocese and if my then-fiancee and I did not meet the requirements for marriage in the Church, the Church could and WOULD approve to marry us. They include, but not limited to: six-month waiting period, pre-Cana class, special dispensation in our case because she was not Catholic, and several others. We don't meet the requirements, we don't get Church wedding.

It has always been like this and the legalization of gay marriages isn't going to change this. Individual churches have the right to set their own rules.
 
No way should he/she be forced to preform a ceremony they do not agree with. I don't think the majority of people who are for SSM are for this. It clearly violates the 1st Amendment.
 
cpwill said:
it will definitely change in the future.
Click to expand...

X Factor said:
And that's the concern, I think.
Click to expand...

Not really a concern since it is unlikely, and would require a complete overhaul of the first amendment which is unlikely. Anything is possible, but things like this have a very remote chance of happening.
 
X Factor said:
It's only a scare tactic if you believe forcing priests (for example) to perform gay weddings is a bad thing and I don't know that I've seen anyone argue that it would be.
Click to expand...

I do not know of any one who favors forcing priests to perform any wedding ceremony.
 
SPC said:
With Gay marriage now being made legal in 6 states, what should be the reaction to a minister refusing to perform the ceremony?
Click to expand...

They refuse to perform straight marriages, why should gay be any different?
 
This whole line of questioning, is just a scare tactic to try and delay the inevitable legalization of SSM throughout the 50 states. It's quite sad really.
 
Your Star said:
This whole line of questioning, is just a scare tactic to try and delay the inevitable legalization of SSM throughout the 50 states. It's quite sad really.
Click to expand...

It won't get anywhere in Missouri. The voters have already overwhlmingly voted to keep it banned here.
 
SPC said:
It won't get anywhere in Missouri. The voters have already overwhlmingly voted to keep it banned here.
Click to expand...

All that means is that Missouri will be a straggler. It will pass everywhere eventually. Human rights movements have a way of doing that.
 
MistressNomad said:
All that means is that Missouri will be a straggler. It will pass everywhere eventually. Human rights movements have a way of doing that.
Click to expand...


It got clobbered here. We're talking over 80% voted against it.
 
SPC said:
It won't get anywhere in Missouri. The voters have already overwhlmingly voted to keep it banned here.
Click to expand...

And the SCOTUS will eventually claim that law unconstitutional. And besides even if they don't, DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional, and people can travel to New York, get a marriage license, and your state will have to recognize it. Besides when my generation starts to vote more, any SSM law will be passed. It's inevitable, and you can't do anything about it.
 
SPC said:
It got clobbered here. We're talking over 80% voted against it.
Click to expand...

...And I'm sure the numbers would have been similarly strong against it in New York circa 1950. But guess what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom