Is the religious liberty of pro-SSM churches infringed by banning civil same-sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Biblepoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Biblepoe

Guest
Given how much people here recognize the importance of religious liberty, I’m wondering what people here think.
 
Define “religious liberty.”

If you mean a civil right, this is defined by the government, therefore, it is impossible for it to be infringed by the government following its own definitions.

If you mean a moral, natural, or inalienable right, no one has such a right to do evil, therefore, there is no moral right to homosexual unions.
 
The right to religious liberty is not absolute. The practices of false religions should be prohibited if they negatively effect public morality.
 
So called same sex marriage and religious liberty cannot co-exist. One will have to give. Guess which one?
 
Churches that endorse same sex marriage and homosexual lifestyle do not represent scripture and the Judeo-Christian tradition. (Unless they are an undercover satanic religion), they represent the godless secular concept of the human being and his existential purpose. At best, these ‘religions’ have ceded authority to no other source than their own opinion and don’t warrant legal or social respect as a ‘religion’.
 
No more than the religious freedom of devil worshippers is infringed by laws against human and animal cruelty.
 
buffalo said:
So called same sex marriage and religious liberty cannot co-exist. One will have to give. Guess which one?
Click to expand...
Isn’t it strange that the government, which officially does not recognize God, seeks control over one of God’s Sacraments? If it is legal to live together without marriage, why should the government have any interest in it at all?
 
They don’t have a God-given right to do any sort of gay “marriage” ceremony. There is no right to error. On the other hand, I don’t know why it should be against the law for some group to do some “marriage” rite or whatever if it isn’t recognized by the state, at least right now. It’s probably not prudent to make something like that illegal right now, but that’s just my opinion.
 
CrossofChrist said:
They don’t have a God-given right to do any sort of gay “marriage” ceremony. There is no right to error. On the other hand, I don’t know why it should be against the law for some group to do some “marriage” rite or whatever if it isn’t recognized by the state, at least right now. It’s probably not prudent to make something like that illegal right now, but that’s just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I think that in principle there should be laws against public sacrilege, but I agree that that would be highly immprudent at this time.
 
SSM makes no sense because they want to mimic the very thing they reject. They reject traditional marriage. But at the same time they want to make believe that what they have is the same as traditional marriage. That’s confusion not religion.
 
Marriage equality is based on the Constution not on Te Bible or any ones religious institution.

Marriage as a right has been determined to be civil right by the Supreme Court no less than 14 times. Your religious beliefs do not get to decide who can exercise their civil rights.
 
They don’t have the right to perform “marriages” period. God never gave anyone the right to change marriage and the state can’t do so either. While the state can legally allow “gay marriage” they are not right in doing so. It is gravely sinful. All of the rights that we have came from God.
 
That is your religious belief to hold and guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our government not your religious beliefs nor your churches beliefs… Marriage equality comes under the jurisdiction of civil law. Your religious beliefs do not determine another’s civil rights.
 
Publisher said:
That is your religious belief to hold and guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our government not your religious beliefs nor your churches beliefs… Marriage equality comes under the jurisdiction of civil law. Your religious beliefs do not determine another’s civil rights.
Click to expand...
The Constitution merely recognizes “rights” given to us by God. The USSC has managed to derive from emanations and penubrae whatever they want.
 
Some of their decisions I don’t like but I am grateful that religious beliefs and institutions do not determine who will be granted civil rights and who will not.
 
devoutchristian said:
The right to religious liberty is not absolute. The practices of false religions should be prohibited if they negatively effect public morality.
Click to expand...
Agreed!

We have to be careful…we should not make religious liberty some sort of ultimate right. First comes our duty towards the true Church of Christ. Second comes tolerance of error. However tolerance is just that, tolerance and it exists only in some instances
 
…
The reality is, civil marriage affects well over 1,000 provisions in the law, and the Catholic Church would be required to abide by them, in ways that could reach within the four walls of the church building itself.
Click to expand...
In effect, legalizing “gay marriage” is at the same time criminalizing the Church’s view on marriage, wherever it is expressed. It does not leave the Church free to operate under its own definition of marriage. Rather, it forces religious groups to adhere to the state’s definition or shut down, pushing the Church and its understanding on marriage further and further out of the public square.
Click to expand...
A society with “gay marriage” is a society without Catholic adoption agencies, marriage counselors or wedding halls. It is a society in which Catholic homeless shelters cannot provide rooms or programs for married couples and Catholic colleges cannot offer married student housing. It is a society in which the Church’s view on marriage is criminal.
Click to expand...
In this critical time, Catholics must not be naïve. Make no mistake, the legalization of “gay marriage” is the criminalization of Church teaching on marriage. And to the extent that the Church cannot comply, there will be consequences. The Church and “gay marriage” cannot coexist.
Click to expand...
Why the Catholic Church and Gay “Marriage” Cannot Co-exist
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Why the Catholic Church and Gay “Marriage” Cannot Co-exist
Click to expand...
Read this for info on Catholic Charities stopping adoptions. They previously placed children in same sex homes. The decision to stop wasn’t about same sex marriage.

Denmark has a national church which is why they must abide by national law. The U.S. has no national church so the situation is very different. (this is exactly why I see outlawing it can actually infringe on religious and non-religous liberty). I think Britain is going through something similar with the C.O.E.

I’m assuming the Methodist church mentioned rents out the church for non-Methodist weddings. Hence they must rent to anyone who asks. The Catholic Church doesn’t do this so it won’t be an issue (this is my understanding of the issue anyway).

Bottom line is that article is just a bunch of scare mongering.
 
J_Peterson said:
Read this for info on Catholic Charities stopping adoptions. They previously placed children in same sex homes. The decision to stop wasn’t about same sex marriage.

Denmark has a national church which is why they must abide by national law. The U.S. has no national church so the situation is very different. (this is exactly why I see outlawing it can actually infringe on religious and non-religous liberty). I think Britain is going through something similar with the C.O.E.

I’m assuming the Methodist church mentioned rents out the church for non-Methodist weddings. Hence they must rent to anyone who asks. The Catholic Church doesn’t do this so it won’t be an issue (this is my understanding of the issue anyway).

Bottom line is that article is just a bunch of scare mongering.
Click to expand...
As your linked article states, Peter Meade is the former chairman of the board for Catholic Charities of Boston.

Bottom line is I will take an archbishop’s words, read here, before the views expressed by Mr. Meade and an Internet forum participant from MA, notwithstanding the stated faith.
… the larger picture that’s becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it’s a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination.
Click to expand...
If you want to know what this new public legal and social norm stigmatizing traditional believers will mean for real people, ask David and Tanya Parker, who objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized it in that state and wanted to pull him out of class for that lesson. He was arrested and handcuffed for trying to protect his son’s education, and they were told they had no right to do so.
Click to expand...
Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don’t allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). … Ask the doctor in San Diego County who did not want to personally create a fatherless child through artificial insemination, and was punished by the courts… Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. … Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of “anti-discrimination” is trumping liberty and compassion. …
Click to expand...
When people say that opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, like opposition to interracial marriage, they cannot also say their views won’t hurt anybody else. They seek to create and enforce a new moral and legal norm that stigmatizes those who view marriage as the union of husband and wife. … It’s not kind, and it doesn’t seem to lead to a “live and let live” pluralism.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top