• 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
SPC

SPC

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
215
Reaction score
46
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
With Gay marriage now being made legal in 6 states, what should be the reaction to a minister refusing to perform the ceremony?
 
That is fine. If a church doesn't want to do the ceremony, I am sure the couple can find another that will.
 
Ministers should be able to refuse to perform whatever ceromony they want, gay, straight, or... otherwise

The repercussions, if any, should then be taken care of within the church itself.
 
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...

Why would there need to be a reaction. He ain't got to perform a ceremony he don't want to. End of story.
 
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'd be less likely to attend his sermons. Or patronize their organization in any manner.
 
I posted this to see what reaction it would have. So far I'm getting some interesting answers.
 
SPC said:
I posted this to see what reaction it would have. So far I'm getting some interesting answers.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. These are the expected answers. Why would people endorse forcing religion to perform marriage ceremony for same sex couples? There's going to be churches that do anyway, and there's no way to properly use government force to make the rest comply. It's still a free country....for now anyway.
 
There are ministers that refuse to marry people who have divorced. There is a lot of hoop jumping in the Catholic Church over this. Should we force them to perform weddings in this case? Of course not.

Many ministers will not perform a wedding without the couple sitting through marriage counseling sessions first. Should we force a minister to dispense with this requirement? Of course not.

I'm not sure why anyone would want someone officiating over a ceremony like this that doesn't want to be there in the first place.
 
SPC said:
I posted this to see what reaction it would have. So far I'm getting some interesting answers.
Click to expand...

The question is uninteresting. You do know that ministers are allowed to refuse to marry someone based on religious discrimination? They can't be forced to perform any ceremony from baptism to a funeral.
 
RStringfield said:
The question is uninteresting. You do know that ministers are allowed to refuse to marry someone based on religious discrimination? They can't be forced to perform any ceremony from baptism to a funeral.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think his question is more what do you think should happen and not what would actually happen. I think he's looking for your personal opinion as to whether or not a church should be forced to perform gay marriages, which is a different question from what you believe would or would not actually happen.
 
Not an issue as long as we have a first amendment.
 
X Factor said:
To be fair, I think his question is more what do you think should happen and not what would actually happen. I think he's looking for your personal opinion as to whether or not a church should be forced to perform gay marriages, which is a different question from what you believe would or would not actually happen.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I was trying to see what people's reactions would be. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but I thought it would be interesting to see what reactions people would have if a minister refused to perform a ceremony they thought was immoral and wrong.
 
Redress said:
Not an issue as long as we have a first amendment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

This is not true.
 
The New York State law allows priests, ministers, rabbis, etc...to refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

this is all fine and good, as folks can get married by a judge.
 
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...

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Plus, the last thing we need in this country is another protected class. Damn!!
 
apdst said:
You're comparing apples to oranges.

Plus, the last thing we need in this country is another protected class. Damn!!
Click to expand...

Orientation is already protected in the same manner as race and gender.
 
Redress said:
Orientation is already protected in the same manner as race and gender.
Click to expand...

But not on the level of what ARealconservative is suggesting.
 
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...

You are wrong. Age, faith and sex are all protected classes yet churches are allowed to discriminate against them if the discrimination relates to the practice of their religion. There have been cases of age discrimination dismissed based on the ministerial exception. Why do you think Catholics are allowed to discriminate against women in choosing priest? Or for that matter, why would they be allowed to discriminate against priests of a different faith?

This is not a controversial matter and is well established in the law.
 
RStringfield said:
You are wrong. Age, faith and sex are all protected classes yet churches are allowed to discriminate against them if the discrimination relates to the practice of their religion. There have been cases of age discrimination dismissed based on the ministerial exception. Why do you think Catholics are allowed to discriminate against women in choosing priest? Or for that matter, why would they be allowed to discriminate against priests of a different faith?

This is not a controversial matter and is well established in the law.
Click to expand...

you make good points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom