Gay marriage and it's affects on Churches

[avatar4321]

There was an interesting discussion on the effect of the government recognizing and regulation same sex relationships as marriage on Rush today. A number of callers created some inciteful dialogue. The discussion occured here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/26/why_draw_the_line_at_couples
Ill quote what I thought was the interesting portions:


RUSH: This is the #1 issue among people under 30 in this country, even conservative young people under 30, and it is this technique that has secured it. I think you're right.

CALLER: It often drives a real wedge between both kids and their church as well if they're active in a church. It really goes beyond just branding individuals as bigots, though. If you say that same-sex marriage is a human right or a civil right or something along those lines, then every single church that stands for traditional marriage suddenly becomes like the KKK. That's a very dangerous situation to be in.

RUSH: Because they're opposed to "civil rights." The KKK was opposed to civil rights, and gay marriage is a civil right. So if you're opposed to it, you're no different than the Klan.

CALLER: Yeah. So how can the government justify giving you a break on property taxes or counting you as a charity if you're an organization opposed to a civil right.

RUSH: Exactly.

CALLER: In fact, there's actually a legal precedent.
RUSH: Right!

CALLER: That would give the government a lot of power to impose very harsh penalties on churches under that circumstance. If you go back to the late 1800s where there was this big fight between Mormons -- who were practicing polygamy, that definition of marriage -- and the federal government that had a monogamous definition of marriage, was a bill passed called the Edmunds-Tucker Act. That law wound up stripping anyone who didn't accept, like swear an oath to accept the state's definition of marriage, of rights.
If you didn't do that, you did not have the right to vote. You did not have the right to serve in a public office. You did not have the right to serve as a juror. Wives could be compelled to testify against their husbands or be sent to jail if they didn't. The Mormon Church itself was dis-incorporated and its assets were seized. And, you know, this sets a legal precedent that could be turned around at Catholics, Baptists, Mormons again, and every other church that holds to traditional marriage if you go and say that same-sex marriage is a right


This is what it's all about. The Court could be giving the radical progressives the biggest weapon to be used to attack Churches if they do not uphold Prop 8. I think many of the Churches realize this and that's why they are fighting this so hard.

[gabosaurus]

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. There is a huge difference between what is "morally correct" and what is legally correct.
Morality is a personal issue and varies based on individual beliefs. Legality is what holds up in a court of law.
You can't infuse religion into a legal argument because there is no place for it.

[logroller]

I have a right to free speech, right? But churches have a right to restrict speech to those in line their beliefs. theres a balance to be found between the two. If i go into a church and talk about how there is no God, the church has right to make me leave. Free speech/ marriage : no difference in this regard. If anything, churches should be against the government coercing morality, lest the congregation find themselves receiving the sharp end of the establishment stick.

[gabosaurus]

I have a right to free speech, right? But churches have a right to restrict speech to those in line their beliefs. theres a balance to be found between the two. If i go into a church and talk about how there is no God, the church has right to make me leave. Free speech/ marriage : no difference in this regard. If anything, churches should be against the government coercing morality, lest the congregation find themselves receiving the sharp end of the establishment stick.

Well stated.

[avatar4321]

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. There is a huge difference between what is "morally correct" and what is legally correct.
Morality is a personal issue and varies based on individual beliefs. Legality is what holds up in a court of law.
You can't infuse religion into a legal argument because there is no place for it.

So we should just ignore the historical precedent of government officials using marriage laws to persecute religions because you don't understand the argument?

[gabosaurus]

So we should just ignore the historical precedent of government officials using marriage laws to persecute religions because you don't understand the argument?

None of that would hold up in present day court.
My point is that any implied or stated discrimination against churches has nothing to do with whether gays should be allowed to marry.

[avatar4321]

None of that would hold up in present day court.
My point is that any implied or stated discrimination against churches has nothing to do with whether gays should be allowed to marry.

Because empowering government with a weapon to attack our God given rights isn't a reason to oppose it.

[Robert A Whit]

There was an interesting discussion on the effect of the government recognizing and regulation same sex relationships as marriage on Rush today. A number of callers created some inciteful dialogue. The discussion occured here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/26/why_draw_the_line_at_couples
Ill quote what I thought was the interesting portions:



This is what it's all about. The Court could be giving the radical progressives the biggest weapon to be used to attack Churches if they do not uphold Prop 8. I think many of the Churches realize this and that's why they are fighting this so hard.

Entirely plausible.

[Robert A Whit]

I have a right to free speech, right? But churches have a right to restrict speech to those in line their beliefs. theres a balance to be found between the two. If i go into a church and talk about how there is no God, the church has right to make me leave. Free speech/ marriage : no difference in this regard. If anything, churches should be against the government coercing morality, lest the congregation find themselves receiving the sharp end of the establishment stick.

There is a contradiction up there. I underlined them.

I don't object to homosexual activity based on morality yet look at the way some try to restrict my commentary right on this forum. I base my objections on the premise of homosexual legality yet My way to solve their problems in CA was to vote IN FAVOR of homosexuals so they had rights of a Civil union. When we first voted in CA not in favor of homosexuals marrying, we had personal reasons. I speak only for my reasons. But feeling I did not want them to be hurt, and wanting to treat them as fellow humans who had personal needs, I took door number 2. Door 2 was to vote for civil unions. Then the courts backed us up. Even our state supreme court, known to lean left, backed us up. I don't like the Feds being involved. As somebody said, when the Feds got all over we Mormons over rights to marry, we got beat up pretty bad. We had to be forced to obey some crafted Fed law or the state of Utah could go to hell.

So, I feel sorry that homosexuals can't take care of their needs. But I don't believe we need to keep redefining marriage merely for them. When the state and Feds block so many marriages where they are heterosexuals, somebody better try to explain that when we did vote for civil rights via civil unions. That is a much better deal than we Mormons got.

[logroller]

There is a contradiction up there. I underlined them.


No contradiction. So goes the saying, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I have a right to hold a Roman Catholic mass, but I don't have the right to do it at Temple Square.

[darin]

Churches MUST hold weddings for Gay couples if Marriage is a 'right'. Right?

[revelarts]

In canada and a few other countires just reading the Bible verses on Homosexuality is considered "hate speech' and illegal. it's already begun there.

log you seem to want to confine religion to within the church walls , where the right to say what you want is OK,
many pastors and laypeople speak on TV and radio. will that be illegal?
what about at the park or door to door?

As far as legislating morality goes, that's what gov'ts do.
Stealing is Immoral, killing is immoral, it's against the law --in most cases--.
the problem is we in the west have abandoned where our sense of morals have come from and are living off the fumes of Christian morals in law and trying to replace it with ad hoc, fad-ish neo-scientific pragmatisms.

[DragonStryk72]

Because empowering government with a weapon to attack our God given rights isn't a reason to oppose it.

Um, What right of yours is being impeded by someone else doing something that does not effect you in any way? Your right to marriage is not being taken away, nor is it really being lessened any more than it has by bullshit marriages in Vegas, or marriage for convenience.

All in all, the government is NOT talking about religious marriage anyway, as it has absolutely no authority in that realm in any event. Maybe is we were in England or one of them, but we're not, so cheerfully, the government cannot intercede in religious matters of this kind. As far as the government is going, it's talking about the contractual establishment of marriage, and not it's religious overtones.

The problem there is the Democratic leadership WANTS to turn it into a morality debate, when it really isn't. Why? Because it's really hard to whip up a mob over contract law.

[cadet]

Um, What right of yours is being impeded by someone else doing something that does not effect you in any way? Your right to marriage is not being taken away, nor is it really being lessened any more than it has by bullshit marriages in Vegas, or marriage for convenience.

All in all, the government is NOT talking about religious marriage anyway, as it has absolutely no authority in that realm in any event. Maybe is we were in England or one of them, but we're not, so cheerfully, the government cannot intercede in religious matters of this kind. As far as the government is going, it's talking about the contractual establishment of marriage, and not it's religious overtones.

The problem there is the Democratic leadership WANTS to turn it into a morality debate, when it really isn't. Why? Because it's really hard to whip up a mob over contract law.

If a Christian doesn't fight gay marriage, he's turning his back on god on that subject. Does anyone else understand that? A BIG part of our religion is that we fight evil and try to bring morality, God, and happiness to the places we go.

With this subject, religiously speaking, we CAN'T stand back and watch our country go to shit.

[Robert A Whit]

Um, What right of yours is being impeded by someone else doing something that does not effect you in any way? Your right to marriage is not being taken away, nor is it really being lessened any more than it has by bullshit marriages in Vegas, or marriage for convenience.

All in all, the government is NOT talking about religious marriage anyway, as it has absolutely no authority in that realm in any event. Maybe is we were in England or one of them, but we're not, so cheerfully, the government cannot intercede in religious matters of this kind. As far as the government is going, it's talking about the contractual establishment of marriage, and not it's religious overtones.

The problem there is the Democratic leadership WANTS to turn it into a morality debate, when it really isn't. Why? Because it's really hard to whip up a mob over contract law.

Doesn't your logic apply to polygamy, bigamy, adult incest marriages and others in similar vein?

[Robert A Whit]

Um, What right of yours is being impeded by someone else doing something that does not effect you in any way?

Comment: This can also apply to many other things. Such as buying guns, smoking, knowing of someone killed by a killer and so forth. The basis in law is not what you suggest.

Say I get shot dead. Are you harmed?

[revelarts]

Um, What right of yours is being impeded by someone else doing something that does not effect you in any way? Your right to marriage is not being taken away, nor is it really being lessened any more than it has by bullshit marriages in Vegas, or marriage for convenience.

All in all, the government is NOT talking about religious marriage anyway, as it has absolutely no authority in that realm in any event. Maybe is we were in England or one of them, but we're not, so cheerfully, the government cannot intercede in religious matters of this kind. As far as the government is going, it's talking about the contractual establishment of marriage, and not it's religious overtones.

The problem there is the Democratic leadership WANTS to turn it into a morality debate, when it really isn't. Why? Because it's really hard to whip up a mob over contract law.

ok, Christian, Jew or Muslim has biz.
hires a person, person says "i'm married" you must provide insurance for my same sex spouse.

Is that forcing a Christian, Muslim or Jew to support what they consider a sin. it is absolutely.
If its a Religious institution do they have to hire and support persons who openly regularly commit acts forbidden by their religion?

the contractual establishment of marriage, does have religious implications. And conclicts with our religious culture roots for said contracts.
The gov't didn't have a hand in it in the U.S. until some people wanted to put a break on the so called horrors of "race mixing".
(which was fine as long as only the slave masters did it).
gov't got on the wrong foot again here, promoting unproductive and perverse relations.

[Robert A Whit]

ok, Christian, Jew or Muslim has biz.
hires a person, person says "i'm married" you must provide insurance for my same sex spouse.

Is that forcing a Christian, Muslim or Jew to support what they consider a sin. it is absolutely.
If its a Religious institution do they have to hire and support persons who openly regularly commit acts forbidden by their religion?

the contractual establishment of marriage, does have religious implications. And conclicts with our religious culture roots for said contracts.
The gov't didn't have a hand in it in the U.S. until some people wanted to put a break on the so called horrors of "race mixing".
(which was fine as long as only the slave masters did it).
gov't got on the wrong foot again here, promoting unproductive and perverse relations.

If DOMA ends I see the way polygamy will work. Polygamists will show up to work and demand his many wives are covered on the insurance policy. The IRS will be forced to allow deductions on the tax returns no matter how many wives he has.

A man from Saudi Arabia arrives to be a citizen with his 54 wives. All will be on the tax form as a deduction.

[logroller]

Churches MUST hold weddings for Gay couples if Marriage is a 'right'. Right?
Wrong. Bearing arms is a right too; but I dont have to let you do so in my house. (Though I likely would)

In canada and a few other countires just reading the Bible verses on Homosexuality is considered "hate speech' and illegal. it's already begun there.


log you seem to want to confine religion to within the church walls , where the right to say what you want is OK,
many pastors and laypeople speak on TV and radio. will that be illegal?
what about at the park or door to door?


As far as legislating morality goes, that's what gov'ts do.
Stealing is Immoral, killing is immoral, it's against the law --in most cases--.
the problem is we in the west have abandoned where our sense of morals have come from and are living off the fumes of Christian morals in law and trying to replace it with ad hoc, fad-ish neo-scientific pragmatisms.


You misunderstand me; I meant that, within church walls and at the discretion of its members, the general public rights can be limited. Given the first amendment, I believe churches have a special right in this regard, but so too is limited to thise confines. A church can marry who they wish, but within the public scope such limitations upon rights are deleterious of liberty and equality. For this reason, I disagreed with prop 8 for fear that government enforcing what I view as a morality issue was to take a tiger by the tail and indeed the penance for doing so may be a loss of liberty like those you stipulated re:Canadian and European "hate speech".

In regards to the legality of immoral acts and the converse, immorality of illegal acts, the two aren't mutually dependent; something can be either immoral and legal, legal and moral, immoral and illegal, and moral and illegal. That any one act is immoral and illegal does not convey any certainty whatsoever that any other immoral act would be illegal. We must therefore Utilize an alternative reasoning. By way if illustration, our declaration of independence was illegal according to english law; but i do believe it was moral. Stipulated in it was the belief that men are born with certain inalienable rights and governments are instituted to secure these rights. So by this rationale, the reasoning for murder and stealing being illegal is that stealing deprives one of property:: murder: life. What does gay marriage deprive another of?

[logroller]

If DOMA ends I see the way polygamy will work. Polygamists will show up to work and demand his many wives are covered on the insurance policy. The IRS will be forced to allow deductions on the tax returns no matter how many wives he has.

A man from Saudi Arabia arrives to be a citizen with his 54 wives. All will be on the tax form as a deduction.
I passively suspect that the LDS support of prop 8 may have had counterintuitive motives; that by forcing the definition of marriage into the public forum, it may have the intended effect of legitimizing polygamy. However, PPACA allows for surcharges on dependent coverage so long as its not age dependent. So an insurer could charge for more dependents. The policies I've had were individuals had one rate, adding up to five dependents an additional charge and then additional charges for each dependent after that.

[logroller]

ok, Christian, Jew or Muslim has biz.
hires a person, person says "i'm married" you must provide insurance for my same sex spouse.

Is that forcing a Christian, Muslim or Jew to support what they consider a sin. it is absolutely.
If its a Religious institution do they have to hire and support persons who openly regularly commit acts forbidden by their religion?


No. there are exceptions to the equal opportunity employment act,
http://counsel.cua.edu/Religion/publications/legal-issues.cfm

but its not just any biz that can claim exemption. I doubt punching buttons at hobbylobby would qualify for an exemption; whereas doing so at a church or religious school would.

[gabosaurus]

If DOMA ends I see the way polygamy will work. Polygamists will show up to work and demand his many wives are covered on the insurance policy. The IRS will be forced to allow deductions on the tax returns no matter how many wives he has.

A man from Saudi Arabia arrives to be a citizen with his 54 wives. All will be on the tax form as a deduction.

Wrong. Marriage will still be one person with one person. No multiples, no children, no animals, no refrigerators.

[DragonStryk72]

If a Christian doesn't fight gay marriage, he's turning his back on god on that subject. Does anyone else understand that? A BIG part of our religion is that we fight evil and try to bring morality, God, and happiness to the places we go.

With this subject, religiously speaking, we CAN'T stand back and watch our country go to shit.

Ahem... "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's." -Jesus

6 years of Catholic School, you really wanna jerk that chain? Homosexuality is sin, sure, but all sex, aside from missionary position between a husband and his wife, are equally sinful. Prepared to ban all of that, too? Bear in mind, that includes receiving head, regardless of whether it is from a spouse of the appropriate gender or not, the Bible makes no distinction. Heck, in the same section as that stuff is laid out as hell-worthy trespasses, so is eating meat on a Friday. According to the Bible, all of those are equal offenses, and so, as a good Christian, you must fight those evils, yes?

Should you be getting ready to back out of that arrangement, then let's be clear: You are a hypocrite, and that is the worst judgment that Christ ever laid in his lifetime, most notably against the Pharisees, basically like saying it to the Pope.

[DragonStryk72]

ok, Christian, Jew or Muslim has biz.
hires a person, person says "i'm married" you must provide insurance for my same sex spouse.

Is that forcing a Christian, Muslim or Jew to support what they consider a sin. it is absolutely.
If its a Religious institution do they have to hire and support persons who openly regularly commit acts forbidden by their religion?

the contractual establishment of marriage, does have religious implications. And concflicts with our religious culture roots for said contracts.
The gov't didn't have a hand in it in the U.S. until some people wanted to put a break on the so called horrors of "race mixing".
(which was fine as long as only the slave masters did it).
gov't got on the wrong foot again here, promoting unproductive and perverse relations.

You fill out the forms, fill in appropriate information, and pay in your extra co-pay and premiums. In the case of same sex marriage, there may be a requirement to see a marriage certificate.

No, I would say they wouldn't. I mean, come on, any church that is openly against gay marriage, and homosexuality to that scale, you're just a fucking moron for signing up in the first place, and judges should certainly be allowed to say as much to you. Now that said, you cant be half in the door, half out the door on it either. If your Christian business does accept homosexuals for employment, then that's that. And you've gotta toe that religious line otherwise, not just be "Well, screw the gays".

Christ, this wouldn't even be a real discussion if we didn't have so much needless bullshit from things like funds matching and whatnot. Otherwise, it wouldn't really matter. Sigh... But that's a whole separate issue that isn't a part of this discussion.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627474#post627474)
If DOMA ends I see the way polygamy will work. Polygamists will show up to work and demand his many wives are covered on the insurance policy. The IRS will be forced to allow deductions on the tax returns no matter how many wives he has.

A man from Saudi Arabia arrives to be a citizen with his 54 wives. All will be on the tax form as a deduction.





Wrong. Marriage will still be one person with one person. No multiples, no children, no animals, no refrigerators.

That argument would not fly in any court.

I believe that opening up traditional marriage to homosexuals has negative effects on society.

You know something Gabby,. I pulled up CA law that is now under attack by homosexuals of this state and found that they have foiught against civil unions. What you have in your marriage, by law homosexuals have the exact same things you do. Yet they fight against civil unions. They can't accept yes and I don't understand why.

This is why the state SC said the final thing we had to do was amend the state constitution.
Given they have full benefits, I can't explain why they took this to the Fed SC.

I voted for civil unions for them so I feel I did my job to help homosexuals.

I realize you may be busy but may I offer you a suggestion? You can study law at many schools and you need not take the full course including all forms of law to find out how law works.

I did it and I highly recomment any American at least study some varoious law courses.

One of the best is Business law. It is far more than just business. You will learn much about contract law, export and import laws, and to get more, take real estate law. I also got a lot of law in management courses.

Give it a shot. Those will all do anybody taking them a lot of good.

If you love law, then take criminal law. Homosexuals are not criminals but what they want is covered by business law.

In law courses, I used to argue some side or the other. We got assignments from the teacher to argue pro or cons some point of law. It was great. I was a straight A student by the way.

[Missileman]

Churches MUST hold weddings for Gay couples if Marriage is a 'right'. Right?

I've never heard of a church being forced to perform a straight marriage. Why do you believe they'd be forced to perform a gay ceremony?

[Missileman]

A BIG part of our religion is that we fight evil and try to bring morality, God, and happiness to the places we go.


Eerily same logic used to justify the shit that Muslims perpetrate. I'm going to climb out on a limb and assume that you don't think it's okay when THEY do it.