House speaker proposes Pastor’s Protection Act

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Son_of_Niall

Guest
DAWSONVILLE — State lawmakers are looking at a proposal that would protect clergy from being required to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Speaker of the House David Ralston, a Republican from Blue Ridge, announced his support for a Pastor’s Protection Act in Georgia during the House Republican Caucus on Jekyll Island.
Click to expand...
“We will reinforce our commitment to the separation of church and state as well as reaffirm the right of the clergy to carry out their duties as their religious beliefs, not government, prescribes,” Ralston said in a statement.
Click to expand...
The proposed bill would clarify that state government will not require clergy to perform any marriage ceremony that conflicts with their religious doctrine.
Click to expand...
forsythnews.com/section/1/article/27814/
 
ChibiViolet said:
Praying it works…
Click to expand...
“It’s clear they are protected under the 1st amendment but I think it’s important to codify that into the Georgia law.” (clipped from link)

This is important to codify into the law of every state so we may protect our religious freedom. God forbid someday the state will force our priests(pastors) to perform same sex marriage or whatever else becomes deemed as marriage.

Joining you in prayer.

St Michael the Archangel defend us in battle…

Thanks for sharing this link.

Mary.
 
Weird. I think it is like sponsoring a bill to prevent the quartering of British soldiers in Georgia, just to codify it into law. But I have no reason to point fingers. We just had a politician try to pass a resolution to stop the UN from taking over the Alamo. 😃

Pastors have never been required to marry anyone, baptize anyone, confirm anyone, or ordain anyone.

Remember back when it was liberals who specialized in symbolism over substance?
 
MaryT777 said:
“It’s clear they are protected under the 1st amendment but I think it’s important to codify that into the Georgia law.” (clipped from link)

This is important to codify into the law of every state so we may protect our religious freedom. …
Click to expand...
You underestimate the courts’ ability to rationalize.
 
pnewton said:
Weird. I think it is like sponsoring a bill to prevent the quartering of British soldiers in Georgia, just to codify it into law. But I have no reason to point fingers. We just had a politician try to pass a resolution to stop the UN from taking over the Alamo. 😃

Pastors have never been required to marry anyone, baptize anyone, confirm anyone, or ordain anyone.

Remember back when it was liberals who specialized in symbolism over substance?
Click to expand...
LOL. Got to keep those British soldiers in line.

You are quite correct, tho, in that clergy are not, nor have they ever been, required to baptize, confirm, ordain, nor marry anyone they deem unsuitable.

Why are people so up in arms?
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Why are people so up in arms?
Click to expand...
Fear. It is always easier (and more profitable) to promote fear than probably reality. It is not just Democrats of whom it can be said, never let a good crisis go to waste. The horrible decision of the Supreme Court will bring out all the politicians and pundits jockeying for the spotlight.
 
Won’t work, or rather it should not work.

“Congress shall make NO law concerning religion. . .”
 
ComplineSanFran said:
LOL. Got to keep those British soldiers in line.

You are quite correct, tho, in that clergy are not, nor have they ever been, required to baptize, confirm, ordain, nor marry anyone they deem unsuitable.

Why are people so up in arms?
Click to expand...
Because the SSM issue has been framed in terms of federal “civil rights,” and that slope is a slippery one indeed, subject to all sorts of bureaucratic overreaching. Mrs. Clinton, for one, is on record as saying “Religion will have to change.” (You can look that up.) Punitive measures such as removing tax exemptions from “non-conforming” religious bodies are all too easy to imagine.
 
MKBorders said:
Won’t work, or rather it should not work.

“Congress shall make NO law concerning religion. . .”
Click to expand...
“…concerning an ESTABLISHMENT of religion…” i.e. not setting up an official established church.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Because the SSM issue has been framed in terms of federal “civil rights,” and that slope is a slippery one indeed, subject to all sorts of bureaucratic overreaching. Mrs. Clinton, for one, is on record as saying “Religion will have to change.” (You can look that up.) Punitive measures such as removing tax exemptions from “non-conforming” religious bodies are all too easy to imagine.
Click to expand...
Tax exemptions is the least of the problems. There will be civil rights lawsuits against pastors/priests, their parishes, and their institutional bodies.

For example, from the LCMS website:
Q: In light of all the recent publicity about same-sex marriage, where does the LCMS stand on the issue?
Click to expand...
A: God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church (Eph. 5:32). Homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24, 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9–20; 1 Tim. 1:10) as contrary to the Creator’s design (Rom. 1:26–27). The LCMS affirms that such behavior is “intrinsically sinful” and that, “on the basis of Scripture, marriage [is] the lifelong union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:2-24; Matt. 19:5-6)” (2004 Res. 3-05A). It has also urged its members “to give a public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual ‘marriage’ ” (2004 Res. 3-05A). At the same time, the Synod firmly believes "the redeeming love of Christ, which rescues humanity from sin, death, and the power of Satan, is offered to all through repentance and faith in Christ, regardless of the nature of their sinfulness” (1992 Res. 3-12A). The Synod developed a Law/Gospel ministry plan for use in ministry to those who are troubled by homosexual desires, Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families.
Click to expand...
Highlighting is mine.

Merely stating that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, can and, I believe, will be the target of lawsuits because it is “hate speech” and discriminatory.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
…
Merely stating that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, can and, I believe, will be the target of lawsuits because it is “hate speech” and discriminatory.

Jon
Click to expand...
What law bans “hate speech?” Who decides what constitutes it?

“Discriminatory”? Everyone discriminates many times every day.
“The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars. Blacks, women, and 18-year-olds have the right to vote, while aliens and felons do not.” – Lino Graglia, Professor of Constitutional Law, UTA.
Click to expand...
 
unstoppable_II said:
What law bans “hate speech?” Who decides what constitutes it?

“Discriminatory”? Everyone discriminates many times every day.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. Tell that to the progressives. They already refer to the Church not performing SSM as “discriminatory”. We have already heard, in front of the SCOTUS, progressives state that they will be looking into the comparison of religious institutions that do not approve of SSM as being in the same category as Bob Jones University. Some universities, ostensibly Christian, are changing their housing arrangements, and conduct codes, preemptively to avoid the coming law suits.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top