What if a Minister refuses to perform a gay 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...

Gay marriage should be legal but a church should not be forced to preform a ceremony.

SPC said:

I posted this to see what reaction it would have. So far I'm getting some interesting answers.

Click to expand...

really? seems we universally agree that no one has a right to be married in a church.

cpwill said:

no, they will simply lose their licenses if they do not.

Click to expand...

No, they won't. They get to choose who they marry among hetrosexuals now, with no fear of losing a license. it is silly to think that would change. Churches will not be forced to marry anyone.

cpwill said:

and the inevitable is that churches will face the choice between either marrying homosexuals, or losing their license. :shrug: It's not a scare tactic - it's simply the direction of travel.

Click to expand...

No they won't. There is no reason to think they will. So it is nothing more than scare tactic, period.

liblady said:

really? seems we universally agree that no one has a right to be married in a church.

Click to expand...

Thats what I was thinking to. Whats interesting? 100 agree the churches shouldnt and cant be forced and then theres about 2 maybe 3 people that are pushing unrealistic scare tactics lol

Ministers refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for all sorts of reasons all the time. Most ministers who marry a couple have them go through kind of a "pre marriage" counseling session with him or her a lot of the time... some ministers have done that and chosen not to marry someone based on the fact that they think they are going into marriage for the wrong reasons, or whatever the case may be. Its a ministers right to chose who he marries and doesnt. Folks can always go to the courthouse to get married.... be they heterosexual or homosexual.

I don't feel like reading 150+ posts.

So, my response to the OP.

To my knowledge, there is no secular law preventing a religious leader from refusing to perform any kind of ceremony.

Even if it's because the people involved are of one race or another, it's still legal for said leader to refuse.

I can't see how it could be otherwise, what with the rules set down in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights (bolded emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Thus, barring a constitutional change that could only occur if there were a position change of epic proportions among the people of America, I cannot see any feasible way for this to even be considered anything but an extremely remote possibility.

And in response to some of what I did read (notably X Factor’s post), the reason no one espoused any sentiment as to required religious ceremonies being a negative is because, at least from my perspective, such a position was assumed to be the case for all parties involved.

--------------------------

Edit: I like the poll results - 60 out of 60 people voted "Should be allowed to refuse."

Dezaad said:

I am completely opposed to the spread of religion. You have asked how I think it should be stopped. You think I meant that legal measures should be put in place to prevent the spread of religion. I don't. Nothing should be done. Nothing legislatively, that is. For the sake of freedom, I am resigned to the continued existence of religion. That was the point of me mentioning my opposition to religion, and I thought that would be clear from the context. I think Ludahai, the devout conservative Catholic, understood it. He 'liked' my post, in any event. Thanks Ludahai!

.

Click to expand...

Just remember, I don't always 'like' posts because I agree with them. Sometimes, it is because someone clarifies a position I was unclear about, or I was amused by the post, or it was a post that made me think about something in a different way.. . I hope people on here don't equate 'like' with 'agree'. I certainly don't.

ludahai said:

Just remember, I don't always 'like' posts because I agree with them. Sometimes, it is because someone clarifies a position I was unclear about, or I was amused by the post, or it was a post that made me think about something in a different way.. . I hope people on here don't equate 'like' with 'agree'. I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

Some do, I'm sure.

Definitely not all.

cpwill said:

and the inevitable is that churches will face the choice between either marrying homosexuals, or losing their license. :shrug: It's not a scare tactic - it's simply the direction of travel.

Click to expand...

It is inevitable that churches will face the choice between either marrying homosexuals, or losing their credibility. But that's because public opinion is inexorably moving towards equal rights for gays. Any church can drag its heels, but there will be social fallout. There won't be legal fallout, because they are constitutionally protected. Seriously, why is this thread even 16 pages long? No religious institution is ever forced to perform a ceremony they don't want to.

Paschendale said:

It is inevitable that churches will face the choice between either marrying homosexuals, or losing their credibility. But that's because public opinion is inexorably moving towards equal rights for gays. Any church can drag its heels, but there will be social fallout. There won't be legal fallout, because they are constitutionally protected. Seriously, why is this thread even 16 pages long? No religious institution is ever forced to perform a ceremony they don't want to.

Click to expand...

I think some may be either confused about the separation between (as you put it) legal fallout and social fallout, or actually think that the country is so far gone from what it used to be that congress could change the 1st amendment and no one would say a damn thing about it.

Paschendale said:

It is inevitable that churches will face the choice between either marrying homosexuals, or losing their credibility. But that's because public opinion is inexorably moving towards equal rights for gays. Any church can drag its heels, but there will be social fallout. There won't be legal fallout, because they are constitutionally protected. Seriously, why is this thread even 16 pages long? No religious institution is ever forced to perform a ceremony they don't want to.

Click to expand...

then why havent they already lost thier credibility? its not like this will be the first or even biggest thing churches have discriminated against.
their credibllity only matters to people that believe in them and for the most part those people arent going anywhere

ludahai said:

Just remember, I don't always 'like' posts because I agree with them. Sometimes, it is because someone clarifies a position I was unclear about, or I was amused by the post, or it was a post that made me think about something in a different way.. . I hope people on here don't equate 'like' with 'agree'. I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh, no, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me at all. In fact, I assumed that you disagreed with my sentiment about religion in general. However, I didn't think that you would have "liked" my particular post if it had been saying that religion should be curbed by some legislative means. I would have thought that any argument along those lines would have had to be far more developed for you to have 'liked' it for it's thoughtfulness.

To be frank, I did come to the conclusion that you liked the post because you liked the fact that I don't want to legislate my own personal views regarding religion. I see now that I might have been wrong on that count, though you haven't said either way. If I did put words in your mouth, I do also here apologize

Dezaad said:

I am completely opposed to the spread of religion. You have asked how I think it should be stopped. You think I meant that legal measures should be put in place to prevent the spread of religion. I don't. Nothing should be done. Nothing legislatively, that is. For the sake of freedom, I am resigned to the continued existence of religion. That was the point of me mentioning my opposition to religion, and I thought that would be clear from the context. I think Ludahai, the devout conservative Catholic, understood it. He 'liked' my post, in any event. Thanks Ludahai!




Why would I say that creating fear was a tactic of the religious right's leadership to manipulate it's ignorant followers? Because that is exactly what it is. The religious right does piss me off. They lie in order to manipulate. I think this should be pointed out, vigorously, when it is done. When it is pointed out, they repeat the lie ever more emphatically. Their ignorant followers follow suit. This pisses me off, too. So, when you ask what I am worried about, it is their followers believing the lies they are told. They do this often. Believe things that have no substance or basis, that is.

Click to expand...

You know what? Failure to be in agreement with your supercilious ass does not make one ignorant. Hard to believe, huh? You know, when the best argument you have is to bash your political opposition, you show your own ignorance. Ironic huh?

Redress said:

Are you aware that circumcision is a medical procedure? Parents cannot rely on faith healing over actual treatments for a child with cancer either. That is because...it is different than SSM, which is not, guess what...a medical procedure.

Click to expand...

The principles are the same, whatever the context. You're saying no medical decisions can involve religion? Shoot, look at end of life decisions, faith often plays a big role and it's a lot more serious that circumcision.

LuckyDan said:

The better cons on this board must stop kissing left wing ass, X. That's why they keep coming at us so unpreparedly - they just know we're gonna be nice about it. They think we're panzies. And some of us are.

Click to expand...

I don't think I understand your point. I'm not pissed at all and I won't get pissed so I'd appreciate an honest answer. Did it seem to you the I was "kissing left wing ass" with my post you replied to?

X Factor said:

You know what? Failure to be in agreement with your supercilious ass does not make one ignorant. Hard to believe, huh? You know, when the best argument you have is to bash your political opposition, you show your own ignorance. Ironic huh?

Click to expand...

No, being in disagreement with me doesn't make one ignorant. What makes one ignorant is not having a clue how the law works on these matters, not having a clue how liberals feel on these matters, and then top it off by believing the manipulative lies of the right wing propaganda machine. These matters are not in credible contention. The only thing that gives them a patina of credibility is that they are spouted so loudly by idiot entertainers on the right. Due to the fact that these conspiracy theories are believed by a sizable minority, they should be responded to vigorously with the ridicule they richly deserve. The fact that they are believed by that sizable minority notwithstanding.

Dezaad said:

No, being in disagreement with me doesn't make one ignorant. What makes one ignorant is not having a clue how the law works on these matters, not having a clue how liberals feel on these matters, and then top it off by believing the manipulative lies of the right wing propaganda machine. These matters are not in credible contention. The only thing that gives them a patina of credibility is that they are spouted so loudly by idiot entertainers on the right. Due to the fact that these conspiracy theories are believed by a sizable minority, they should be responded to vigorously with the ridicule they richly deserve. The fact that they are believed by that sizable minority notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you can think of any area of disagreement where you wouldn't see someone as being ignorant for disagreeing with you? Don't answer that now, I would just believe you're making it up just to spite me. You think you have your thumb on the pulse of the law, whereas nobody who disagrees with you does? I've provided several examples of things where the law has drifted in unforeseen ways. As far as not knowing what liberals think, shoot, some of you get pissed off if we ask "how liberals feel on the matter". I believe that was the very heart of the OP question and just for asking it, you get your shorts in a bunch. Finally, I think the biggest left wing propaganda lie that you have fully swallowed is that only the right wing uses propaganda.

JohnWOlin said:

Click to expand...

You're gonna piss someone off with this, I'm just not sure who. :mrgreen:

X Factor said:

The principles are the same, whatever the context. You're saying no medical decisions can involve religion? Shoot, look at end of life decisions, faith often plays a big role and it's a lot more serious that circumcision.

Click to expand...

No, actually the principle is different. The problem with comparing two unlike things is that they are...different.

Centrist77 said:

then why havent they already lost thier credibility? its not like this will be the first or even biggest thing churches have discriminated against.
their credibllity only matters to people that believe in them and for the most part those people arent going anywhere

Click to expand...

I'd have to say that a lot of religious institutions and even the institution of religion itself is losing credibility. Stories in scripture are being proven false. Old morality is showing that it's outdated and not applicable. Only three of the ten commandments have any correlation in US law (stealing, murdering, and bearing false witness - at least under oath). Atheism, as a movement, is growing, and even just a more casual take on religion is becoming more and more popular. How many Christians only go to church on Christmas? Reform Judaism, a much more relaxed take on the faith, is the most populous Jewish denomination in the world, and especially in the United States. Despite the loud yelling by extremists, religion has lost a lot of credibility.

Also, the most extreme individual institutions are already ostracized. Does anyone actually defend the Westboro guys? A church that loudly refuses to marry gays will likely be lumped into the same category as them. Of course, why a gay couple would want to be married in a church that would refuse them is beyond me. I don't actually see this conflict coming up too often.

Paschendale said:

Also, the most extreme individual institutions are already ostracized. Does anyone actually defend the Westboro guys? A church that loudly refuses to marry gays will likely be lumped into the same category as them. Of course, why a gay couple would want to be married in a church that would refuse them is beyond me. I don't actually see this conflict coming up too often.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, and don't forget the fallout the Catholic church is facing over the whole raping kids thing. That cost 'em a lot of cred.

X Factor said:

The principles are the same, whatever the context. You're saying no medical decisions can involve religion? Shoot, look at end of life decisions, faith often plays a big role and it's a lot more serious that circumcision.

Click to expand...

Faith plays a role in what decision is made, in an end of life decision, not in who gets to determine that decision legally or whether someone should be allowed to ignore that person's decision simply because they don't approve of the relationship because of their religious beliefs.

It is about what role faith/religion plays in the point being discussed and how, specifically, denying a certain right/thing will have on a person's ability to still practice their religion or not have to violate their religious beliefs for some social reason.

Church/clergy being forced to perform a religious ceremony for anyone/any couple that would violate religious beliefs is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. And forcing such a thing does not actually serve a valid purpose or protect anyone, since we have people specifically designated by the state that can sign the legal marriage license, who cannot discriminate.

Law banning circumcisions does prevent a person from practicing their faith, but that is currently being weighed against whether that right should be more important than protecting a child from an unnecessary medical procedure. I personally think the bans on circumcisions are stupid and the 1st Amendment should come out on top, in this case.

But not all religious ideas are protected under the 1st Amendment. Individuals cannot claim that they have a right to marry girls under a certain age in order to practice their religious beliefs if it is against the law to do so. People cannot refuse to do their job based on an objection to something that is required by that job for them to do based on their religious beliefs. A person cannot claim that the Bible instructs them to kill homosexuals or that the Koran instructs them to kill unmarried women who are not virgins, for whatever reason, and actually be protected by the 1st Amendment. In many cases, a person's personal religious beliefs will be weighed against other people's rights.

Paschendale said:

I'd have to say that a lot of religious institutions and even the institution of religion itself is losing credibility. Stories in scripture are being proven false. Old morality is showing that it's outdated and not applicable. Only three of the ten commandments have any correlation in US law (stealing, murdering, and bearing false witness - at least under oath). Atheism, as a movement, is growing, and even just a more casual take on religion is becoming more and more popular. How many Christians only go to church on Christmas? Reform Judaism, a much more relaxed take on the faith, is the most populous Jewish denomination in the world, and especially in the United States. Despite the loud yelling by extremists, religion has lost a lot of credibility.

Also, the most extreme individual institutions are already ostracized. Does anyone actually defend the Westboro guys? A church that loudly refuses to marry gays will likely be lumped into the same category as them. Of course, why a gay couple would want to be married in a church that would refuse them is beyond me. I don't actually see this conflict coming up too often.

Click to expand...

hmmm its not that i disagree i have to say it different to be more clear. i dont think they are losing credibility in the sense that there are lots of people that ONCE thought them credible during adulthood and now do not.

They are however not GAINING followers at the same rate they used too which makes the credibility seem like it is shrinking but I think its more a matter of it dying out and not being replenished, I dont think lots of adults are LEAVING religion.

Is that more clear? IDK Im having trouble explaining it.