Churches forced to perform gay marriages?

[jimnyc]

Some said this was preposterous, that this would never happen, that folks were making excuses to be against gay marriage based on religious reasons and such. But I read an argument elsewhere. They said that a gay person getting married is now a civil right. So what does this mean if a Catholic church says "no", for example. Are they then violating their civil rights? What penalties can be sought for such down the road? Could they also lose tax exempt status?

And IF any of that were to happen - what is others arguments then? Should a church be forced to perform gay marriages, even though it's against their religious beliefs? I say no way, no how. But I can easily see it happening before long.

[Kathianne]

I figure 3 years tops, before churches that won't go along lose tax exempt status. If parochial schools won't go along, they'll close.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Some said this was preposterous, that this would never happen, that folks were making excuses to be against gay marriage based on religious reasons and such. But I read an argument elsewhere. They said that a gay person getting married is now a civil right. So what does this mean if a Catholic church says "no", for example. Are they then violating their civil rights? What penalties can be sought for such down the road? Could they also lose tax exempt status?

And IF any of that were to happen - what is others arguments then? Should a church be forced to perform gay marriages, even though it's against their religious beliefs? I say no way, no how. But I can easily see it happening before long.

All roads lead to Rome=
All roads lead to a liberal hell, they view as a paradise..

Very likely that they may force a civil war because they have control of the Federal government.
Yet also very likely that they want to do so ONLY after they confiscate our guns!!!
We must never give up our Guns!!!!!

[jimnyc]

I figure 3 years tops, before churches that won't go along lose tax exempt status. If parochial schools won't go along, they'll close.

Hopefully someone will find a way to stop that kind of insanity, create a bill or something that keeps things "as-is" for religious entities.

[Abbey Marie]

:puke:

[Noir]

Who knows.
I don't think change will come through legal means, more likely social pressure.
Anyways in the mean time (certainly locally) the churches are going to take an absolute hounding from the public for their dark age social stances.

[jimnyc]

Who knows.
I don't think change will come through legal means, more likely social pressure.
Anyways in the mean time (certainly locally) the churches are going to take an absolute hounding from the public for their dark age social stances.

We're used to nitwits against Christianity and religion in general.

[Kathianne]

The ACLU has already said they will no longer defend religious freedom under federal law. See wapo, i can't link from phone.


Edit to add link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

[jimnyc]

If I were clergy and forced to marry them?

"Besides the fact that this marriage is an abomination and a mockery, is there anyone else that would stand in the way of this laughable circle of marriage?"

See how many continue to come. No law states they must be friendly and polite with sinners who refuse to repent. :)

[Abbey Marie]

We're used to nitwits against Christianity and religion in general.

Lol.

Seriously, it has always come with the territory. It's kind of engineered to be this way.

[Abbey Marie]

If I were clergy and forced to marry them?

"Besides the fact that this marriage is an abomination and a mockery, is there anyone else that would stand in the way of this laughable circle of marriage?"

See how many continue to come. No law states they must be friendly and polite with sinners who refuse to repent. :)

Not yet, anway.

[PixieStix]

http://bjconline.org/u-s-supreme-court-affirms-right-of-same-sex-couples-to-marry-062615/

I don't think church or minister should be forced to marry a gay couple. It would violate their religious liberties.

[indago]

Here's a discussion on the matter...


https://youtu.be/HRaTmxOYj0M

[PixieStix]

It's not going to happen without a fight

[jimnyc]

http://bjconline.org/u-s-supreme-court-affirms-right-of-same-sex-couples-to-marry-062615/

I don't think church or minister should be forced to marry a gay couple. It would violate their religious liberties.

So others will see what you linked to. Hopefully this will be the case and stand.

---

In his opinion, Kennedy attempted to assuage concerns that religious freedom would be harmed by its ruling. Here is that passage:

[I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

[WiccanLiberal]

The part of a marriage that gives it legality is not the religious component. It is the civil license and the registration of the commitment and that can be as simple as a clerk having you declare in front of them and some witnesses and getting the papers stamped. A church or other ceremony, while emotionally satisfying, is not enough to make the marriage legal unless the presiding official has a valid license for the couple and possesses legal standing in the jurisdiction to solemnize a marriage and duly submits the correct paperwork following the ceremony. In other words, there is no need for any church or other religious entity to be forced to perform a ceremony for people that do not fit their definition of marriage eligibility. I am sure that when interracial marriage was legalized, there were similar discussions. The sky is not falling people. If your religious entity says certain people are not to be married in that institution, then they won't be. They will have their ceremony where they feel welcomed, as indeed they have been doing for years even without the legal imprimatur.

[Abbey Marie]

The part of a marriage that gives it legality is not the religious component. It is the civil license and the registration of the commitment and that can be as simple as a clerk having you declare in front of them and some witnesses and getting the papers stamped. A church or other ceremony, while emotionally satisfying, is not enough to make the marriage legal unless the presiding official has a valid license for the couple and possesses legal standing in the jurisdiction to solemnize a marriage and duly submits the correct paperwork following the ceremony. In other words, there is no need for any church or other religious entity to be forced to perform a ceremony for people that do not fit their definition of marriage eligibility. I am sure that when interracial marriage was legalized, there were similar discussions. The sky is not falling people. If your religious entity says certain people are not to be married in that institution, then they won't be. They will have their ceremony where they feel welcomed, as indeed they have been doing for years even without the legal imprimatur.


That all sounds good, W, but we have seen things happen just this week, that most swore could never happen. It is time for us to once and for all come out of our cozy cocoons, open our eyes, and know that there are no institutions or freedoms that this liberal government can't or won't eviscerate.

I for one, am fully aware that the religious freedoms I hold dear, the very ones this nation was founded upon, are under attack as never before in this country. Luckily, Christians were never to be spiritually "of this world". I am hopeful that these events will remind us all of that Biblical truth, and perhaps will even eventually result in Revival. But either way, we need to know that our future and our hope are decidedly not in any government.

[tailfins]

That all sounds good, W, but we have seen things happen just this week, that most swore could never happen. It is time for us to once and for all come out of our cozy cocoons, open our eyes, and know that there are no institutions or freedoms that this liberal government can't or won't eviscerate.

I for one, am fully aware that the religious freedoms I hold dear, the very ones this nation was founded upon, are under attack as never before in this country. Luckily, Christians were never to be spiritually "of this world". I am hopeful that these events will remind us all of that Biblical truth, and perhaps will even eventually result in Revival. But either way, we need to know that our future and our hope are decidedly not in any government.

If the Amish and German Baptists can do it, so can we. I don't think we need to go as far as giving up electricity and the internal combustion engine, though.

[Noir]

We're used to nitwits against Christianity and religion in general.

I can't speak for America, but certainly in Ireland "nitwits" are abandoning the churches because of issues like gender/sex equality.

[Perianne]

The part of a marriage that gives it legality is not the religious component. It is the civil license and the registration of the commitment and that can be as simple as a clerk having you declare in front of them and some witnesses and getting the papers stamped. A church or other ceremony, while emotionally satisfying, is not enough to make the marriage legal unless the presiding official has a valid license for the couple and possesses legal standing in the jurisdiction to solemnize a marriage and duly submits the correct paperwork following the ceremony. In other words, there is no need for any church or other religious entity to be forced to perform a ceremony for people that do not fit their definition of marriage eligibility. I am sure that when interracial marriage was legalized, there were similar discussions. The sky is not falling people. If your religious entity says certain people are not to be married in that institution, then they won't be. They will have their ceremony where they feel welcomed, as indeed they have been doing for years even without the legal imprimatur.

I predict there will be church vs. gay rights legal action before Obama leaves office. I don't know how, but it is coming. It is the natural progression of things.

[Bilgerat]

Who knows.
I don't think change will come through legal means, more likely social pressure.
Anyways in the mean time (certainly locally) the churches are going to take an absolute hounding from the public for their dark age social stances.


When's the first gay marriage at a mosque?

[red state]

Who knows.
I don't think change will come through legal means, more likely social pressure.
Anyways in the mean time (certainly locally) the churches are going to take an absolute hounding from the public for their dark age social stances.

As Jim said (except): NIT WITLESS

You could be the one with a dark age social stance and mine is the NORMAL, civil one to stand against a perversion that has been around for a LONG, Long, long time. It is just a shame that homosexuals aren't born homosexual....otherwise, they would have gone extinct before it ever started due to lack of procreation. Instead, they strive to MAKE homosexuals.....instead of birth them.

[aboutime]

I predict there will be church vs. gay rights legal action before Obama leaves office. I don't know how, but it is coming. It is the natural progression of things.


Perianne, and others here. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange? How the gays, and the libs always cling to the parts of the constitution they like, while ignoring the rest of the constitution?

Especially the 1st Amendment parts the Gays, and Libs are so VOCAL about in Separating CHURCH and STATE?

How can they...THE GAYS, be demanding that Government oversee, and EXTORT Churches with threats of taking away TAX exemptions when Marriages are NOT government????

Does it sound just a little bit...HYPOCRITICAL to anyone on this?????

[Noir]

When's the first gay marriage at a mosque?

I dunno about the 'first' but I memo reading a story a while back about a Muslim cleric marrying gay couples, it was a few years ago but I'll have a poke about for it.

The weddings themselves were/are secrets of course as the the socially dark age Muslims were threatening exile, murder and such towards such 'heathen' practices.

[revelarts]

the homosexual agenda by necessity must forces the churches and believers in every public venue to conform and agree with them on every point, Or punish and crush us in various forms.
There's no room for a difference of opinion from GOD or MAN. they claim their view is "reality". A "religious" view has no standing in their eyes. And often it's "believed" to be just a cover for "bigotry".

All of the Homosexuals forcing photographers, bakers, florist out of biz already tells you that religious freedom doesn't really count.
they there is no tolerance for the 4000 year old religious view that homosexuality is sin.

"It’s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins"NYTIMES OP ED (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?_r=0)

"....Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”

Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them...."

................
Gov't tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines

Officials threaten to punish senior citizen couple – both ordained pastors – if they decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies

Saturday, October 18, 2014
Quote:
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines - Alliance Defending Freedom (http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364)
COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.


................
Anyone who refuses to conform to the homosexual view will be crushed put out of business, or ghettoized into churches then they'll demand that the churches conform... or else.
Gay dads campaign for church wedding (From Chelmsford Weekly News)

...Millionaire Gay Couple Sues to Force Church Wedding
Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
In fresh comments published by the Chelmsford Weekly News in the U.K. today, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said legal action had started.
“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples," he said.
“We feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.....
However, top human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill says protection for the Anglican Church is “eminently challengeable” in court.
A copy of O’Neill’s legal advice was sent to the prime minister in January, but Mr. Cameron nevertheless proceeded with the legislation.....
Gay dads campaign for church wedding (From Chelmsford Weekly News) (http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.uk/news/10617202.Gay_dads_campaign_for_church_wedding/)

Millionaire Gay Couple Sues to Force Church Wedding ? Charisma News (http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding)but that's in England, it will never happen here...Right?
just like the legalization of Homosexual marriage will never happen here.

[Voted4Reagan]

The Government can't mandate that Catholic Churches or any other do anything that may violate their religious Doctrine.

That is a violation of the separation of Church and State.....

Gays have the CIVIL right to get married...

This does not extend to Religious Institutions.

The Constitution forbids it.

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.

[Kathianne]

The Government can't mandate that Catholic Churches or any other do anything that may violate their religious Doctrine.

That is a violation of the separation of Church and State.....

Gays have the CIVIL right to get married...

This does not extend to Religious Institutions.

The Constitution forbids it.

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.

The Constitution gave jurisdiction of marriage directly to the state. SCOTUS ignored, why wouldn't they ignore more? They will.

[red state]

I dunno about the 'first' but I memo reading a story a while back about a Muslim cleric marrying gay couples, it was a few years ago but I'll have a poke about for it.

The weddings themselves were/are secrets of course as the the socially dark age Muslims were threatening exile, murder and such towards such 'heathen' practices.

"heathen" you say?! You forgot that SODOMY is also perverse....not to mention a proven menace to society (lest we forget the AIDS epidemic. And for the record.....I proudly wear the badge of "old fashioned" or "Neanderthal" before shamefully wearing the disgraceful, disgusting badge of a WEIRD PERVERT.

[Kathianne]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/post-scotus-gay-marriage-religious-institution-tax-exemptions-at-risk/


Post-SCOTUS Gay Marriage: Religious institution tax exemptions at risk (http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/post-scotus-gay-marriage-religious-institution-tax-exemptions-at-risk/)

http://s3.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/themes/legal/images/comments.png (http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/post-scotus-gay-marriage-religious-institution-tax-exemptions-at-risk/#comments)
http://s2.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/themes/legal/images/link.png (http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/post-scotus-gay-marriage-religious-institution-tax-exemptions-at-risk/)

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye (http://legalinsurrection.com/author/kemberlee-kaye/) Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 6:30pm
Definitely in progressive crosshairs, as the government warned during oral argument.

Forty-eight hours after the Supreme Court’s monumental gay marriage decision, and progressives are already calling for an end to tax exemptions for churches.

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador introduced the First Amendment Defense Act. The bill would protect religious institutions who, for religious beliefs, do not actively participate in gay wedding ceremonies.

In an op-ed published two weeks ago in the Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865630939/First-Amendment-Defense-Act-protects-critical-space-of-freedom.html?pg=all), Sen. Lee explained:


This is a bill that would prohibit the federal government from penalizing individuals or institutions on the basis that they act in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.



The First Amendment Defense Act, which Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, will introduce in the House of Representatives, would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious beliefs about marriage.

After hearing the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, Sen. Lee was most disturbed by a question asked by Justice Alito.



But back in April, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli revealed that the implications of the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges extend far beyond the narrow issue of marriage licenses.


In a brief back and forth about IRS regulations, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli whether religious institutions — including schools — that maintain the traditional definition of marriage would lose their tax-exempt status should the court strike down state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.


The solicitor general responded: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”


This was a chilling moment, but not totally unexpected. For years we’ve seen warnings that, for some activists, the objective is not just legal recognition of same-sex unions, but government coercion of individuals and institutions to affirm — and even participate in — such unions, regardless of good-faith religious objections.

...

It goes on, but not for the better...

[red state]

The Constitution gave jurisdiction of marriage directly to the state. SCOTUS ignored, why wouldn't they ignore more? They will.


Yes, THEY will. THEY have and they will....like a bunch of kids who never learned discipline. Give them what they want and they only want more. Next will be "EQUALITY" in not forming their own perverted church but that WE perform or SWEAR ALLIANCE to their every whim. Of course, and as TYR has mentioned, they may need to disarm the public first....starting with the local Po Po so that the Black & PINK Panthers are the ultimate authority.....unless ISIS has already applied for the position.

[red state]

That all sounds good, W, but we have seen things happen just this week, that most swore could never happen. It is time for us to once and for all come out of our cozy cocoons, open our eyes, and know that there are no institutions or freedoms that this liberal government can't or won't eviscerate.

I for one, am fully aware that the religious freedoms I hold dear, the very ones this nation was founded upon, are under attack as never before in this country. Luckily, Christians were never to be spiritually "of this world". I am hopeful that these events will remind us all of that Biblical truth, and perhaps will even eventually result in Revival. But either way, we need to know that our future and our hope are decidedly not in any government.


YET AGAIN....:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap ::clap::clap::clap::clap:JIM, THIS IS GETTING OLD! BUT IT IS BETTER IN A WAY.
..................You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Abbey again.

[revelarts]

....

The Constitution forbids it.

.....

V4R i WISH that was comforting

the constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment...
the constitution forbids no search and seizures without warrants...
the constitution guarantees the right to a swift and speedy trial....
the constitution guarantees the right of Habeaus Corpus...
the constitution forbids the president from sending troops in war without a declaration from congress...
the constitution guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

there are far more i can list with articles that show they don't mean jack if the gov't doesn't want them to.

[red state]

V4R i WISH that was comforting

the constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment...
the constitution forbids no search and seizures without warrants...
the constitution guarantees the right to a swift and speedy trial....
the constitution guarantees the right of Habeaus Corpus...
the constitution forbids the president from sending troops in war without a declaration from congress...
the constitution guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

there are far more i can list with articles that show they don't mean jack if the gov't doesn't want them to.

I hear ya Rev. I believe I'm thinking more of isolated events but the truth of the matter is that abuses actually needs to happen more not less. As is, we are the frog in the skillet and if they more often threw a Katrina, Ruby Ridge or Boston Marathon house to house on us more......or checks on the highways as thoroughly ineffective as they do in airports, we'd probably rise up (hopefully anyway). As for most of what I suspect you meant out of your reply to V4R, I really can't comment on because it probably wouldn't hold water to most (not with me anyway because I smell a trap). Again, with the cruel and unusual punishment. Can't you simply get off the muSLUM & blk thing and discuss what is being discussed? It isn't that I don't agree with much of what you say but that trying to sneak in other points from other thread is simply beating the dead horse.

[darin]

No law states they must be friendly and polite with sinners who refuse to repent. :)

Christian churches have the Bible - they don't have ANY laws - that teaches otherwise.


So others will see what you linked to. Hopefully this will be the case and stand.

---

In his opinion, Kennedy attempted to assuage concerns that religious freedom would be harmed by its ruling. Here is that passage:

[I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.


But Jim - Roberts doesn't trust that statement...




Chief Justice Roberts, in a dissenting opinion, took issue with the majority’s handling of religious liberty. Here is an excerpt:

Today’s decision . . . creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

[indago]

V4R i WISH that was comforting

the constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment...
the constitution forbids no search and seizures without warrants...
the constitution guarantees the right to a swift and speedy trial....
the constitution guarantees the right of Habeaus Corpus...
the constitution forbids the president from sending troops in war without a declaration from congress...
the constitution guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

there are far more i can list with articles that show they don't mean jack if the gov't doesn't want them to.

They go by the "Humpty Dumpty" theory of meaning: "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean — no more and no less."

[jimnyc]

Christian churches have the Bible - they don't have ANY laws - that teaches otherwise.

Oh I know, you know it's just me talking. How about they preach from the bible about things that go against their abomination then? :laugh:


But Jim - Roberts doesn't trust that statement...

I did a lot more reading of the decision and dissents yesterday as well, and am back on the fence. I still wouldn't be surprised if there were adverse action. And if not forcing marriages, then some sort of penalty.

[Jeff]

Oh I know, you know it's just me talking. How about they preach from the bible about things that go against their abomination then? :laugh:



I did a lot more reading of the decision and dissents yesterday as well, and am back on the fence. I still wouldn't be surprised if there were adverse action. And if not forcing marriages, then some sort of penalty.

First step will be the loss of Tax exemption, if you don't Marry the fags then you have to pay taxes. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Oh I know, you know it's just me talking. How about they preach from the bible about things that go against their abomination then? :laugh:



I did a lot more reading of the decision and dissents yesterday as well, and am back on the fence. I still wouldn't be surprised if there were adverse action. And if not forcing marriages, then some sort of penalty.

Jim, your concerns are well founded:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/how-will-the-us-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision-affect-religious-liberty/396986/


...

Finally, individual church leaders—and judges—will face decisions about whether to perform and recognize gay marriages. In June, North Carolina passed a law (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/north-carolina-same-sex-marriage/395171/) allowing judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether if they object to same-sex unions on religious grounds. This law may only be the beginning. “In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas writes. “It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”


The future of gay marriage has long been a question in the United States, and on Friday, the country got an answer. The questions and conversations surrounding gay marriage now will be of a different kind: what it means to oppose, rather than support, same-sex marriage.

[fj1200]

Some said this was preposterous, that this would never happen, that folks were making excuses to be against gay marriage based on religious reasons and such. But I read an argument elsewhere. They said that a gay person getting married is now a civil right. So what does this mean if a Catholic church says "no", for example. Are they then violating their civil rights? What penalties can be sought for such down the road? Could they also lose tax exempt status?

And IF any of that were to happen - what is others arguments then? Should a church be forced to perform gay marriages, even though it's against their religious beliefs? I say no way, no how. But I can easily see it happening before long.

Yes, preposterous. And should remain so IMO. As you point out Kennedy addressed that in his opinion so that makes it precedence on top of recent rulings that affirmed religious schools had the right to fire and hire based on religious considerations (9-0 post Kagan and Soto IIRC).

I also think that it stretches logic to call marriage a civil right. It is not a civil right IMO, it is a privilege that is inferior to Constitutional rights of Freedom of Religion.


In his opinion, Kennedy attempted to assuage concerns that religious freedom would be harmed by its ruling. Here is that passage:

[I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.