• 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
LuckyDan said:
The cons here are just too damn ready to apologize and make friends with our lib counterparts. I won't name names, but there are strong con posters who seem to go out of their way to say, "Oh, but I'm not a racist. or a homophobe, like those others." And they still get eaten up. SCREW that.

PS. Sooo. . . . you're gay too? Not that there's . . . .skip it.
Click to expand...

I forget who said it, but the comment was made about Nixon, and how he was great because he knew who the enemy was and went after them all out. He was terrible in that he sometimes thought other Americans are the enemy. Other Americans are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. If we remembered that more, we might be in better shape as a country.

I got into the gay mafia on the family plan. I have 2 gay relatives.
 
Redress said:
I forget who said it, but the comment was made about Nixon, and how he was great because he knew who the enemy was and went after them all out. He was terrible in that he sometimes thought other Americans are the enemy. Other Americans are not the enemy, ever. They are at most the opposition. If we remembered that more, we might be in better shape as a country.

I got into the gay mafia on the family plan. I have 2 gay relatives.
Click to expand...

I don't suggest that the cons be hateful, just that they stop trying to make nice in their arguments by throwing other cons, be they famous or just fellow posters, under the bus.

Your post reminded me of this Nixon quote:

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Click to expand...

Considering his powerful enemies, I can see how he might have gone back to that one many times.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes. An example from 2000.

Pastor bars interracial marriage

I think this article puts it well.

The Rev. Madison Shockley: Racist Judge Inadvertently Makes the Case for Gay Marriage - Truthdig
Click to expand...

Does this mean it happened 11 years ago?

Mon 21 Aug 00 18:31
Click to expand...

Anything more recent?

Oh. There is:

Earlier this month it was reported that a justice of the peace in Louisiana refused to perform the wedding of an interracial couple. Justice Keith Bardwell claimed he was not a racist, having married black couples in his own home, but explained that he declined all interracial marriages out of concern for the children of such unions. He voiced the belief that the children of interracial couples have a difficult time in life.
Click to expand...

Note that Bardwell is not a man of the cloth, but a JP.

Yes, it's bull****. Both were wrong. In my experience, children of black-white marriages are freakin gorgeous.
 
LuckyDan said:
Does this mean it happened 11 years ago?



Anything more recent?

Oh. There is:



Note that Bardwell is not a man of the cloth, but a JP.

Yes, it's bull****. Both were wrong. In my experience, children of black-white marriages are freakin gorgeous.
Click to expand...

I personally have zero issue with interracial marriages. I dated a black guy in high school, an Indian guy in A-school, and a full Mexican and a half-Mexican (good looking guy) on the ship. I also had 4 mixed second cousins (the oldest drowned 1 year and 1/2 ago).

What we personally find to be acceptable or not and what is the law are two different things however. According to the law, it is completely legal for a church to refuse to marry a couple for any reason they want, including race, religion, age, sex, sexuality, length of relationship, previous marriages, etc. A clergy could refuse to marry a couple just because he/she doesn't like one or both of the pair. It is a religious ceremony. There is always someone else who can marry a couple. And most couples would rather have someone who actually does approve of their relationship, than someone who is being forced to preside over their union because of a law.

I am completely against any clergy being forced to wed any couple that he/she does not want to wed, gay, straight, white, black, whoever.
 
X Factor said:
And that's the concern, I think.
Click to expand...

well, and it is warranted - we are already seeing moves in this direction.

Centrist77 said:
the first amendment will not be changing in the future because of equal gay rights.
Click to expand...

leaving aside the dispute over what you call "equal gay rights" - the first amendment absolutely will have it's enforcement changed over this issue in the future. already we have seen that the right to association (which is part of the first amendment) can fall before the homosexual demand for Acceptance. Dating sites are forced to match homosexual couples, and pushes abroad to force Christian adoption agencies to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual married couples have given rise to similar movements here.

marriage will be declared to be a state function (which it already is), and it will be argued that those entrusted with carrying out state duties are not allowed to discriminate. Ministers and churches will be told to either start marrying homosexual couples, or lose their ability to officially wed people at all. You start with adoption, then with employment, and you work your way up; and slowly the church's right of association falls before the demands of the Accept Me crowd. We still have all of the "Civil Rights" organizations decades after they have achieved the changes in law that they were founded to effect. Do you think that the homosexual advocacy movement will disappear simply because they succeed in having some states marry them? No, their organizations will continue to exist, and they will be in need of new justifications for their activism.

Everyone now votes in favor of option #1. I am reminded of someone swearing up and down that if the Civil Rights Act led to racial quota's, he would eat his hat.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
leaving aside the dispute over what you call "equal gay rights" - the first amendment absolutely will have it's enforcement changed over this issue in the future. already we have seen that the right to association (which is part of the first amendment) can fall before the homosexual demand for Acceptance. Dating sites are forced to match homosexual couples, and pushes abroad to force Christian adoption agencies to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual married couples have given rise to similar movements here.

marriage will be declared to be a state function (which it already is), and it will be argued that those entrusted with carrying out state duties are not allowed to discriminate. You start with adoption, then with employment, and you work your way up; and slowly the church's right of association falls before the demands of the Accept Me crowd. We still have all of the "Civil Rights" organizations decades after they have achieved the changes in law that they were founded to effect. Do you think that the homosexual advocacy movement will disappear simply because they succeed in having some states marry them? No, their organizations will continue to exist, and they will be in need of new justifications for their activism. Ministers and churches will be told to either start marrying homosexual couples, or lose their ability to officially wed people at all.
Click to expand...

And the law will rule in the Churches favor.
 
:) sadly (or not) no, it won't. the law has already ruled that Christian Organizations do not have the right to association when it comes to deciding to exclude homosexuals; and when it comes to their churches performing state duties? what does the minister say? "By the power invested in my by the state of New York...." yeah, that law will turn quick.

:( and the people here and now swearing up and down that they would oppose such a measure will be defending it.
 
cpwill said:
:) sadly (or not) no, it won't. the law has already ruled that Christian Organizations do not have the right to association when it comes to deciding to exclude homosexuals; and when it comes to their churches performing state duties? that law will turn quick.

:( and the people here and now swearing up and down that they would oppose such a measure will be defending it.
Click to expand...

A church preforming a marriage ceremony is a religious ceremony, and the first amendment protects them.
 
no doubt they will be allowed to continue to have religious ceremonies. they will simply lose the ability to perform legally binding ones.
 
cpwill said:
no doubt they will be allowed to continue to have religious ceremonies. they will simply lose the ability to perform legally binding ones.
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful, this whole line of questioning is nothing more than a scare tactic used by people who want to delay the inevitable.
 
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.
 
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...

Slippery slope, not a logical argument. It is very plausible, and likely that a court will rule that churches have a right to discriminate on religious bounds when preforming a religious ceremony, even if there is a legal component involved, which separates it from other services where they aren't allowed to discriminate like adoption, in which they aren't preforming a religious ceremony.
 
Your Star said:
Slippery slope, not a logical argument. It is very plausible, and likely that a court will rule that churches have a right to discriminate on religious bounds when preforming a religious ceremony, even if there is a legal component involved, which separates it from other services where they aren't allowed to discriminate like adoption, in which they aren't preforming a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

I agree. Nobody should be forcing churches to go against their belief system if they aren't putting people in danger.
 
Your Star said:
Slippery slope, not a logical argument.
Click to expand...

Hubert Humphrey: "If the Civil Rights Act leads to Racial Quotas I will eat my hat."

this isn't a "slippery slope" argument - it's simply pointing out the nature of the groups involved, the legal vulnerabilities, the steps already taken, and the likely destination. this isn't fear-mongering, it's history.

It is very plausible, and likely that a court will rule that churches have a right to discriminate on religious bounds when preforming a religious ceremony, even if there is a legal component involved, which separates it from other services where they aren't allowed to discriminate like adoption, in which they aren't preforming a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

you are correct to note that no one will deny them the right to perform the religious ceremony. they will deny them the right to perform the legal one if they choose not to wed homosexual couples - and they will likely do the same with adoption.

We already have legal precedent for not letting Christian dating services refuse service to homosexuals - why should Christian marriage services be any different, given that they are operating as agents of the state?
 
X Factor said:
You oppose the spread of religion? By what means should the spreading of religion be stemmed? I believed your claim until I read that. You sure your "vigorous opposition" is not just a case of political expediency?
Click to expand...
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!


Hummm, why would something so devoid of substance illicit such a pissy, ideologue response from you? Seems even raising the question about people's opinons pisses you off. What is the mindless far left so worried about?
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
well, and it is warranted - we are already seeing moves in this direction.



leaving aside the dispute over what you call "equal gay rights" - the first amendment absolutely will have it's enforcement changed over this issue in the future. already we have seen that the right to association (which is part of the first amendment) can fall before the homosexual demand for Acceptance. Dating sites are forced to match homosexual couples, and pushes abroad to force Christian adoption agencies to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual married couples have given rise to similar movements here.

marriage will be declared to be a state function (which it already is), and it will be argued that those entrusted with carrying out state duties are not allowed to discriminate. Ministers and churches will be told to either start marrying homosexual couples, or lose their ability to officially wed people at all. You start with adoption, then with employment, and you work your way up; and slowly the church's right of association falls before the demands of the Accept Me crowd. We still have all of the "Civil Rights" organizations decades after they have achieved the changes in law that they were founded to effect. Do you think that the homosexual advocacy movement will disappear simply because they succeed in having some states marry them? No, their organizations will continue to exist, and they will be in need of new justifications for their activism.

Everyone now votes in favor of option #1. I am reminded of someone swearing up and down that if the Civil Rights Act led to racial quota's, he would eat his hat.
Click to expand...

thanks for all those examples that have nothing to do with us losing the 1st and RELIGION being infringed on.
also there are no legal racial "quotas"

Smart objective people simply will not fall for these illogical scare tactics, not reason to because they no logically support.
 
Redress said:
Panzies is not what we would call right wingers. We have much more entertaining names for them. I would tell you what those names are, but I would get kicked out of the gay mafia if I did.
Click to expand...

You're a member of the gay mafia?
 
BDBoop said:
Good grief, Charlie Brown. Sulk much?
Click to expand...

yep some simply want to scare the sheep and others imply don't understand religion is protected and those protections arent going anywhere.

Only time religion is not protected is when it is involves itself in Nonreligious matters and thats how it should be.
St. Micheal's hospital doesn't get to kick people out of they ER if they are gay or of a different religion.
Churches being forced to marry gays is a scare tactic, its simply a denial of common sense.
 
I stepped out for the night, but it looks like we had a lot of interesting debate while I was gone.
 
SPC said:
I stepped out for the night, but it looks like we had a lot of interesting debate while I was gone.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure! I can quit anytime I want, too. I went to my daughters for the weekend, and didn't borrow her laptop to check in because I'M NOT ADDICTED!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom