Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
Are Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and other sects homophobes discriminating against people based on their sexual preferences? I know that to be Catholic you are required to love homosexuals. I love them, but will this issue be used to prove that, aside from this required love, civil rights are being violated? Should the religious community be worried that free-thinking liberal leadership will use this issue to actually shut down the Church, eventually, over time? Beginning with adoption participation which has already a reality?
Is that what is happening in the U.K? If this is an equality issue, how long does it take for California to adopt the same position? (I think we know this is where it is likely to get underway.) Why should Catholic churches in California be allowed to exclude same sex couples from this sacrament? They can't exclude interracial couples, can they? If they can't be forced to marry same sex couples, why should they be allowed to marry anyone? Why should they have tax exempt status if they continue this discriminatory policy?
This begs the question. Are the religious in this country bigots (as they are being portrayed) or are they just trying to keep enemies of the their religion from using the powerful government to shut down their churches, over time?
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
Are churches bigoted? No.
Are they "exclusive?' Of course! Any group that isn't, isn't a group at all.
Do they violate civil rights by not marrying gays? No - they are protected by first amendment freedom of association.
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
Even if they refuse to marry interracial couples?
Tommy De Seno: Are churches bigoted? No.
Are they "exclusive?' Of course! Any group that isn't, isn't a group at all.
Do they violate civil rights by not marrying gays? No - they are protected by first amendment freedom of association. · Sep 9 at 9:46am
Jun '10
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
The Catholic Church can refuse to marry any couple it wishes. If it is felt by the priest that the couple is not entering into a Catholic marriage and have not agreed to accept children willingly from God, the priest can refuse. If a priest has refused to marry an interracial couple, it was not an issue of race, but rather readiness for marriage.
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
What if it's a church that forbids interracial marriage as a matter of policy and belief?
Apr '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
First, no one is forced to be married in a religious ceremony.
Second, if the state declined to recognize marriages witnessed by ministers of a particular church, we would have the situation as it obtains in France: the happy couple, their union having been solemnly blessed by the church, ducks into the grim, seedy municipal registration office for a few minutes of squalid, bureaucratic business, then emerges into the sunlight and proceeds to the joyous, human reception.
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
Basil Fawlty: What if it's a church that forbids interracial marriage as a matter of policy and belief? · Sep 9 at 10:04am
Fine. There are many things Catholics practice that I don't agree with, but my, er, protestations are limited to not being Catholic, not by telling Catholics what they may or may not do.
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
I think Joe's concern is whether the state might decline to recognize all marriages witnessed by ministers of a church that discriminates on the basis of race (or sexual preference).
Grendel: First, no one is forced to be married in a religious ceremony.
Second, if the state declined to recognize marriages witnessed by ministers of a particular church, we would have the situation as it obtains in France: the happy couple, their union having been solemnly blessed by the church, ducks into the grim, seedy municipal registration office for a few minutes of squalid, bureaucratic business, then emerges into the sunlight and proceeds to the joyous, human reception. · Sep 9 at 10:07am
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
But would a hypothetical Church of Straight White People fail to survive an attack on its right to have it's marriages recognized and on its tax-exempt status? Or would it, as Tommy suggests, be protected in its discriminatory practices by the First Amendment?
Gus Marvinson
Basil Fawlty: What if it's a church that forbids interracial marriage as a matter of policy and belief? · Sep 9 at 10:04am
Fine. There are many things Catholics practice that I don't agree with, but my, er, protestations are limited to not being Catholic, not by telling Catholics what they may or may not do. · Sep 9 at 10:09am
Jun '10
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
Grendel: First, no one is forced to be married in a religious ceremony.
Second, if the state declined to recognize marriages witnessed by ministers of a particular church, we would have the situation as it obtains in France: the happy couple, their union having been solemnly blessed by the church, ducks into the grim, seedy municipal registration office for a few minutes of squalid, bureaucratic business, then emerges into the sunlight and proceeds to the joyous, human reception. · Sep 9 at 10:07am
No need to do it on the same day. Not all Europeans do. If we ever come to the point where clergy are no longer given power to function as the town clerk for the purposes of performing legal marriages, the couple can head to town hall & be married before the church rehearsal. Or whenever they find a convenient day before or after the church service.
Jan '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
"They can't exclude interracial couples, can they?" I think they can. I did a bit of research on that question a few years back, and was unable to find any instance of a church being ordered to marry an interracial couple. And I found quite a few stories of churches that refused to perform such marriages.
The church could rely on the freedom of association clause, as Tommy said, as well as the free exercise clause. It's an abhorrent policy, but it would be protected in this country.
Jul '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
To sort of address the original point, I don't think this can happen here. The Church of England is as much a state political organization as it is a religious one. They, as best as I can tell, could force this change upon them. One of our few remaining, completely unabridged, freedoms here is freedom of worship. I don't see this happening here. Perhaps I am naive, but I think we have more to worry about in terms of church imposition of beliefs in the future than the other way around.
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
That's interesting. If you're correct that churches are effectively immune from anti-discrimination law, then it seems unlikely that they can be compelled to perform or witness single-sex marriages. Did your research include church-run schools?
Jobius: "They can't exclude interracial couples, can they?" I think they can. I did a bit of research on that question a few years back, and was unable to find any instance of a church being ordered to marry an interracial couple. And I found quite a few stories of churches that refused to perform such marriages.
The church could rely on the freedom of association clause, as Tommy said, as well as the free exercise clause. It's an abhorrent policy, but it would be protected in this country. · Sep 9 at 10:41am
May '10
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
The rights and duties pertaining to citizenship are grounded in our nature as free self-standing individuals. They belong naturally to all free and self-standing members of society.
The rights and duties pertaining to marriage are grounded in our nature as male and female, whose sexual union engenders children.
The permanent, procreative bond of a man and a woman in marriage is the only sexual relationship that deserves and demands the recognition and protection of the state, because it is the only sexual relationship that serves the interests of a free and humane society.
The equality argument is a red herring. No one denies that homosexuals are free and self-standing citizens. What opponents of SSM deny is that a homosexual relationship is or can be the moral equivalent of the permanent, pro-creative bond of a man and woman in marriage.
May '10
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
If SSM becomes the law of the land, the open persecution of the Church will be not be far behind.
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
Basil Fawlty: But would a hypothetical Church of Straight White People fail to survive an attack on its right to have it's marriages recognized and on its tax-exempt status? Or would it, as Tommy suggests, be protected in its discriminatory practices by the First Amendment?
Edited on Sep 09 at 10:27 am
Sep 9 at 10:26am
One of my points is that once something is defined as an inequality, civil rights claims follow. If the issue was framed as "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" there would be no inequality issues from where civil rights claims would follow.
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
If the British government shut down the Anglican church, would anyone notice?
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
I am concerned about SSM for the following points:
1. Under the logic of SSM, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for polyamory. SSM relies ultimately on the "any 2 people who love each other" argument, which leads to the question of "Why stop at 2, why interfere if that number is 3 or 4?". Polygamy and polyamory are very much associated with many social ills - subjugation of women being the most obvious, but poverty and child abuse being close behind. The main drivers of SSM also are favorable to poly marriages, they will push for it once they have SSM.
2. The government is ALREADY using anti-homophobia against religion. They don't go after the churches directly, instead directing attacks on the work the churches do. "We won't interfere with your ceremonies on Sunday," is their argument but they've already used religion as a criteria in adoption agencies, pro-life women's clinics, ultrasound clinics, etc. SSM will only escalate attacks, probably the next target being tax-exemption status. You can't preach politics from the pulpit, so if you give a sermon on SSM you're involving yourself in politics, so you lose your status.
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
And since the right to SSM has been sold (and recognized by some courts) as akin to the right to marry someone of another race, if the state cannot compel a religion to perform inter-racial marriages, it also cannot compel a religion to perform SSM. But the obverse is also true. A state that can compel a religion to perform inter-racial marriages will soon do the same for SSM.
Joe Escalante
One of my points is that once something is defined as an inequality, civil rights claims follow. If the issue was framed as "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" there would be no inequality issues from where civil rights claims would follow. · Sep 9 at 11:59am
Mar '11
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
To continue:
3. The final concern is this: The same PC logic that drives judges to enact SSM as an "anti-discrimination" thing will most likely be used to enable pedophilia, and islamist child-weddings, reinforcing my first argument above. The PC left uses its "anti-discrimination" arguments only in one direction - against Judeo-Christian traditions. Look at the blind eye already turned towards honor killings and dragging of minor children back to the parents' home countries for forced weddings. Islam, as John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn have so often noted, is higher on the PC scale than homosexual issues.
The real problem, though, isn't even any of the above issues: it is that the debate over SSM, which itself would only affect at max 2-5% of the population, is obscuring the overall decline in marriage and its consequences on future generations. We have a welfare system and tax code positively hostile to marriage - why the silence?
Oct '10
Re: Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Laws Bigots, Or Just Prescient and Prudent?
The Anglican church is a state religion. It is a part of the state. What I want to know is what the U.K. will require private churches to do.