• 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
The national argument is primarily about a government that legislatively edifies the argument that certain people are inferior in the eyes of the law simply because they don't adhere to arbitrary standards.

I wonder why the same people who argue against same-sex marriage don't argue with the same vigor against those who divorce and remarry.
 
Ministers or other religious officials are under no obligation to perform any wedding ceremony that they don't want to. The couple can find another church that doesn't discriminate, or they can get married by a judge (who, unlike the minister, should NOT be able to refuse to perform the ceremony).
 
ARealConservative said:
all it takes is making this group a protective class, and the 1str amendment doesn't apply. I highly doubt clergy could openly use race as a factor in not performing a ceremony any longer, so I could see this eventually coming to pass too.
Click to expand...

Actually the Mormon Church refused to ordain black people into the priesthood until 1978...well after the Civil Rights Act. And as far as I know, there is nothing that says that a religion couldn't discriminate on the basis of race even today. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against protected classes by the government, and to some extent by for-profit businesses. But I'm pretty sure that religious groups are exempt.
 
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...

I dont understand why this fake concern arises.

Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with this issues. Churches refuse marriages RIGHT NOW that are straight.

The constitution allows them to do so and equal gay rights has no effect on that lol

Not saying you OP but in general this argument when used against equal gay rights is nothing more than illogical BS and appeal to emotion, its a scare tactic that smart and objective people dont fall for.
 
ARealConservative said:
all it takes is making this group a protective class, and the 1str amendment doesn't apply. I highly doubt clergy could openly use race as a factor in not performing a ceremony any longer, so I could see this eventually coming to pass too.
Click to expand...

WRONG
unm remind me when civil rights passed?
now lets talk about religions that didnt and still dont treat minorities and women as equal.

so this is a pure illogical appeal to emotion argument that smart objective people just dont buy because the understand the constitution. LOL

Its a nice try though, maybe youll get someone dumb to believe it.
 
For now he will not be required to preform said ceremony. No should he.
 
toddwv said:
The national argument is primarily about a government that legislatively edifies the argument that certain people are inferior in the eyes of the law simply because they don't adhere to arbitrary standards.

I wonder why the same people who argue against same-sex marriage don't argue with the same vigor against those who divorce and remarry.
Click to expand...

Actually, some do. My religion believes that there are "scriptural grounds" for divorce and remarriage. If your spouse is unfaithful, then that is scriptural grounds, but that is the only scriptural grounds for remarriage other than death. Now there is a scripture on marrying a non-believer. If you marry one and they leave, then you are not bound to them in that case. In that case, the marriage can be annulled.
 
toddwv said:
The national argument is primarily about a government that legislatively edifies the argument that certain people are inferior in the eyes of the law simply because they don't adhere to arbitrary standards.

I wonder why the same people who argue against same-sex marriage don't argue with the same vigor against those who divorce and remarry.
Click to expand...

well, probably because it is said that it is "better" if they don't remarry - not that it is wrong that they do. however I agree that we have ignored divorce far too much.


As per the OP; it won't start with that. It will start with some church worker being fired for being in an open homosexual relationship.
 
it will definitely change in the future.
 
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...

I know of no law that would force them to. They are not forced to perform an marriage between hetrosexuals. It's kind of a non-issue.
 
It's highly unlikely that anyone will be forced to do anything here. There will be some grumblings and threats but nothing will happen. I can see some making arguements concerning say a military chaplain but as I noted in an earlier post, why would anyone want someone performing their marriage ceremony that doesn't want to be there?
 
cpwill said:
it will definitely change in the future.
Click to expand...

the first amendment will not be changing in the future because of equal gay rights. Nothing more than a nonsensical scare tactic.
 
X Factor said:
And that's the concern, I think.
Click to expand...

IMO its not a concern to anybody objective. Now of course I dont know the world but the only guy I know worried about this or so he says is a huge homophobe I work with. I havent met anybody else who seriously thinks the 1st amendment is going to be impacted by equal gay rights in any major manner.
 
Centrist77 said:
the first amendment will not be changing in the future because of equal gay rights. Nothing more than a nonsensical scare tactic.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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...


Yes I think it would a bad thing to legally force Priests to marry gay couples.

There ya happy now?
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
IMO its not a concern to anybody objective. Now of course I dont know the world but the only guy I know worried about this or so he says is a huge homophobe I work with. I havent met anybody else who seriously thinks the 1st amendment is going to be impacted by equal gay rights in any major manner.
Click to expand...

I don't know Centrist. 10 years ago, I would not have thought circumcision would be in danger of being outlawed (granted that's only in one city right now). Apparently the first amendment does't matter much to the folks advancing that legislation.
 
X Factor said:
I don't know Centrist. 10 years ago, I would not have thought circumcision would be in danger of being outlawed (granted that's only in one city right now). Apparently the first amendment does't matter much to the folks advancing that legislation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
X Factor said:
I don't know Centrist. 10 years ago, I would not have thought circumcision would be in danger of being outlawed (granted that's only in one city right now). Apparently the first amendment does't matter much to the folks advancing that legislation.
Click to expand...

Nor will it ever stand up.
 
winston53660 said:
Yes I think it would a bad thing to legally force Priests to marry gay couple.

There ya happy now?
Click to expand...

I wasn't unhappy before. I'm just pointing out a position that seems to be obviously missing in all the posts about how it could never happen and, that is, people saying they'd actually oppose forcing the clergy to perform gay weddings. Your opposition is noted, though, and I have no reason to doubt you.
 
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...

OMG no!

What if a minister refuses to perform a straight couple's wedding?

My Dad doesn't marry ANYONE if they don't come to meet with him for marriage counseling over several sessions first. . .he's not performing a social service - he's performing a curteousy on behalf of the couple for a donation - not even a set amount of pay.

I've never heard of him performing a ceremony for someone who isn't religious - it's probably more so due to the fact that he doesn't advertise for services, they come to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom