• 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!

Can Gay Marriage Bans Infringe Upon Freedom of Religion?

Can Gay Marriage Bans Infringe on Religious Freedom?

  • Total voters
    16
S

Spaceman_Spiff

Active member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
275
Reaction score
107
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Whenever the issues of gay marriage and the freedom of religion are discussed it is always in the context of whether allowing gay marriage will infringe on the beliefs of a church that may find it sinful. But with this thread I want to go in another direction.

Growing up I attended a church that was a member of the United Church of Christ, one of the more liberal branches of Protestantism. A few years the UCC as an organization declared that it would recognize gay marriage and churches could perform them if they chose to do so. Yet I live in Illinois, a state that recognizes many rights to gay couples but still has a law that makes gay marriage illegal. So even if my minister wanted to have a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, the law would prohibit them.

Can this be considered an infringement on my church's religious freedom?
 
Last edited:
I mis-voted. It should have been "yes." Sorry. :lol:

You can absolutely make a case for that. And hell, I think more accepting churches should go for it.

Your religious believes dictate gays should be treated equally. I don't see why people whose religious believes dictate they shouldn't should trump that. Let the church decide.
 
I can't think of a religion where being gay is accepted as part of the ceremony.

Well... actually Paganism could qualify. Are there officially recognized Pagan churches in the U.S.? I don't know.

Christianity does not have an ancient tradition of accepting homosexuals, let alone through marriage. I understand the United Church but they are modern so they would have a hard time proving precedent.
 
No, gay marriage bans are not bans upon religious ceremonies, a gay couple can still have a marriage ceremony in a church, ban or no, but it's not legally recognised.
 
I believe that same sex marriage bans impinge on religious freedoms of gays more than allowing SSM impinges on the religious freedoms of those against SSM for religious reasons.

However, I would not use that as a major argument against same sex marriage bans, except as a counter argument when someone tries to bring up that marriage is a religious institution and/or how same sex marriage infringes upon their religion in some way.
 
Temporal said:
I can't think of a religion where being gay is accepted as part of the ceremony.

Well... actually Paganism could qualify. Are there officially recognized Pagan churches in the U.S.? I don't know.

Christianity does not have an ancient tradition of accepting homosexuals, let alone through marriage. I understand the United Church but they are modern so they would have a hard time proving precedent.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would matter. If it's just a matter of precident, well Protestants were here before Catholics.

I think it's interesting, and I think with a good enough lawyer it could be a good case.
 
spud_meister said:
No, gay marriage bans are not bans upon religious ceremonies, a gay couple can still have a marriage ceremony in a church, ban or no, but it's not legally recognised.
Click to expand...

spud is correct. A same-sex couple can get married in a church, but the government has no requirement to offer benefits to this couple. Consider this. If an opposite sex couple gets married in a church, but does not go through the legal processes that fulfill governmental requirements, the government would not consider them married, either. In many cases, the church acts as an agent of the state. Remember... a marriage is a legal contract that is signed. The religious part if separate.

This is also why the argument that if SSM becomes legal, churches will be forced to recognize them is absurd.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Whenever the issues of gay marriage and the freedom of religion are discussed it is always in the context of whether allowing gay marriage will infringe on the beliefs of a church that may find it sinful. But with this thread I want to go in another direction.

Growing up I attended a church that was a member of the United Church of Christ, one of the more liberal branches of Protestantism. A few years the UCC as an organization declared that it would recognize gay marriage and churches could perform them if they chose to do so. Yet I live in Illinois, a state that recognizes many rights to gay couples but still has a law that makes gay marriage illegal. So even if my minister wanted to have a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, the law would prohibit them.

Can this be considered an infringement on my church's religious freedom?
Click to expand...

It might be an infringement, however the state still has a right to decide tax laws for marriage couples.
 
No infringement. The church can still perform the marriage cerimony. They can still view them married from the eyes of the church. The government is under no obligation to recognize under the law any religious ceremony.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Whenever the issues of gay marriage and the freedom of religion are discussed it is always in the context of whether allowing gay marriage will infringe on the beliefs of a church that may find it sinful. But with this thread I want to go in another direction.

Growing up I attended a church that was a member of the United Church of Christ, one of the more liberal branches of Protestantism. A few years the UCC as an organization declared that it would recognize gay marriage and churches could perform them if they chose to do so. Yet I live in Illinois, a state that recognizes many rights to gay couples but still has a law that makes gay marriage illegal. So even if my minister wanted to have a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, the law would prohibit them.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. your pastor is free to have any ceremony he likes. he simply cannot act in the name of the state to produce a legally binding union.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
... I live in Illinois, a state that recognizes many rights to gay couples but still has a law that makes gay marriage illegal. So even if my minister wanted to have a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, the law would prohibit them.

Can this be considered an infringement on my church's religious freedom?
Click to expand...
Your church can marry them w/o breaking the law. It is only a religious ceremony. However, if your church attempts to register that marriage with the state, it is breaking the law. Registering the marriage with the state is like obtaining a IL driver’s license for a 12 year old, it breaking the law. Allowing a 12 year old to drive on private property in IL is not illegal. How can anyone honestly get this concept wrong unless they has a reason to confuse others with less capability to be rational?
 
They are in the marrying business, aren't they? Why should they be allowed to discriminate?

.
 
cpwill said:
this is incorrect. your pastor is free to have any ceremony he likes. he simply cannot act in the name of the state to produce a legally binding union.
Click to expand...
Shortly after I wrote the post, and reading almost every response beginning with Spud's, I realized that in my haste I completely overlooked that a state banning gay marriage was not a prohibition against a religious figure performing a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. In my head I made the assumption that most gay couples would choose not to go through the trouble that is a wedding ceremony since it would be not recognized by the state, creating a de facto prohibition when it does nothing of the sort. For whatever reason I did not think that couples would marry simply for the religious symbolism.

After closer review the only time where my example would have a chance at working is if a state penalized a religious institution for performing gay marriages, and off my the top of my head no state does such a thing. Even then, arguments could be formed that bans on gay marriages do not constitute an infringement on one's religious freedom.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Shortly after I wrote the post, and reading almost every response beginning with Spud's, I realized that in my haste I completely overlooked that a state banning gay marriage was not a prohibition against a religious figure performing a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. In my head I made the assumption that most gay couples would choose not to go through the trouble that is a wedding ceremony since it would be not recognized by the state, creating a de facto prohibition when it does nothing of the sort. For whatever reason I did not think that couples would marry simply for the religious symbolism.

After closer review the only time where my example would have a chance at working is if a state penalized a religious institution for performing gay marriages, and off my the top of my head no state does such a thing. Even then, arguments could be formed that bans on gay marriages do not constitute an infringement on one's religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for reading the thread and coming to an alternate conclusion when logical arguments were presented.
 
TOJ said:
They are in the marrying business, aren't they? Why should they be allowed to discriminate?
Click to expand...

Churching ain't a business. Law treats it as an entirely different animal.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Churching ain't a business. Law treats it as an entirely different animal.
Click to expand...
Why do churches get a break? I thought, in the USA, the government was not supposed to promote religion.

.
 
TOJ said:
Why do churches get a break? I thought, in the USA, the government was not supposed to promote religion.

.
Click to expand...

The government is not allowed to pass laws establishing a state religion.

It says nothing about being disallowed to promote religion in a generalized sense.
 
TOJ said:
Why do churches get a break? I thought, in the USA, the government was not supposed to promote religion.
Click to expand...

They don't. They're also not supposed to regulate it, which they also don't. And, in Franklin's words: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."
 
Zyphlin said:
The government is not allowed to pass laws establishing a state religion.

It says nothing about being disallowed to promote religion in a generalized sense.
Click to expand...
So what is all the kerfuffle about prayer in school?

.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
They don't. They're also not supposed to regulate it, which they also don't. And, in Franklin's words: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."
Click to expand...
Seems to me they are promoting religion if religious organizations get benefits that other organizations do not get.

.
 
Last edited:
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Whenever the issues of gay marriage and the freedom of religion are discussed it is always in the context of whether allowing gay marriage will infringe on the beliefs of a church that may find it sinful. But with this thread I want to go in another direction.

Growing up I attended a church that was a member of the United Church of Christ, one of the more liberal branches of Protestantism. A few years the UCC as an organization declared that it would recognize gay marriage and churches could perform them if they chose to do so. Yet I live in Illinois, a state that recognizes many rights to gay couples but still has a law that makes gay marriage illegal. So even if my minister wanted to have a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, the law would prohibit them.

Can this be considered an infringement on my church's religious freedom?
Click to expand...
No. For any purpose your church wishes, it is free to consider the couple married, regardless if the couple is -legally- married or not.
 
cpwill said:
this is incorrect. your pastor is free to have any ceremony he likes. he simply cannot act in the name of the state to produce a legally binding union.
Click to expand...

But, by allowing one religion to exercise legal control and not others, isn't that elevating one religion over another, in direct violation of the first amendment? Either every faith can do it, or no faiths can do it.
 
TOJ said:
Seems to me they are promoting religion if religious organizations get benefits that other organizations do not get.
Click to expand...

What, you mean the fact that religious organizations are allowed to only hire their own members? That's not a special benefit, that's just the government minding its own business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom