Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[SuperLuigi]

Any attempt to force a church to recognize a same sex civil marriage or to require a church or other religious group to perform such a ceremony, when that ceremony is in violation of the tenants of that faith, runs right into the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[AyJSimon]

You may be right. What are the examples of this you have in mind?

Christians thinking that laws which prevent business owners from discriminating against gay people violates the free exercise of religion.

 

[Rau]

Christians thinking that laws which prevent business owners from discriminating against gay people violates the free exercise of religion.

I believe the import of that provision is actually debatable - that is, it clearly grants some freedoms but common sense says they are not without limit. The actual limits may be subject to interpretation since they are not explicit nor evident from the formulation of the amendment. Regrettably, countries /States forever look to the courts to deduce details, which is akin to solving for 3 unknowns in a system of 2 equations. You can get an answer only if you factor in something else (eg. Personal philosophy, presuppositions, biases, etc).

Can you imagine that compelling a photographer to make a “beautiful” video of the wedding ceremony etc of two men may be an unreasonable impost on the photographer? [And who would want a photographer who felt so uncomfortable about the job? Suing him is really just vindictive IMHO.]

 

[AyJSimon]

Can you imagine that compelling a photographer to make a “beautiful” video of the wedding ceremony etc of two men may be an unreasonable impost on the photographer?

No, I can’t imagine that - because the basis on which a Christian photographer would decline to make a video of the wedding is, in itself, unreasonable. It can’t be reasonable to decline for unreasonable reasons.

 

[Rau]

No, I can’t imagine that - because the basis on which a Christian photographer would decline to make a video of the wedding is, in itself, unreasonable. It can’t be reasonable to decline for unreasonable reasons.

That’s interesting. I can imagine a gay couple being put out by a refusal, yet you can’t empathise with the photographer’s discomfort in being “required” to be part of such an event. This says something about lack of understanding.

PS: There’s no reason to assume the Photographer is Christian, though there may be a good chance that is so, given a large proportion of the world identify themselves as such.

 

[AyJSimon]

That’s interesting. I can imagine a gay couple being put out by a refusal, yet you can’t empathise with the photographer’s discomfort in being “required” to be part of such an event. This says something about lack of understanding.

The photographer’s not required to be part of the event. He/she just can’t refuse because the couple is gay.

 

[Rau]

The photographer’s not required to be part of the event. He/she just can’t refuse because the couple is gay.

How do figure that? He’s required to get completely in amongst the activities, to be sufficiently engaged as to capture all the key events on video. Then to go back to his office and pore over the tape to produce the memento the couple want.

The sexual proclivities of those hiring him is not the issue. It’s the event he’s being asked to contribute to by making a ‘beautiful celebratory’ movie of two men seeking to enter formally into marriage.

If you respect the first amendment, if you are aware of the teachings of various Churches, how can you say that the photographer’s discomfort is “unreasonable”? [The point is not whether it is legal.]

 

[lewevanhoop]

Christians thinking that laws which prevent business owners from discriminating against gay people violates the free exercise of religion.

The free exercise clause doesn’t extend to business. A business is not a person and thus does not enjoy the right of religious freedom.

 

[AyJSimon]

How do figure that? He’s required to get completely in amongst the activities, to be sufficiently engaged as to capture all the key events on video. Then to go back to his office and pore over the tape to produce the memento the couple want.

The sexual proclivities of those hiring him is not the issue. It’s the event he’s being asked to contribute to by making a ‘beautiful celebratory’ movie of two men seeking to enter formally into marriage.

If the photographer has a reason to decline to video record the gay couple’s wedding that doesn’t reduce to the fact that the couple getting married is gay, then I would say that photographer is off the legal hook. They may still wind up in a courtroom, where their decision will have to survive scrutiny. But in principle, there’s no reason a business owner should be punished by the government for declining to serve a gay couple, so long as its for a reason not to do with the couple being gay. (But just so you’re aware, just flatly stating that the reason has everything to do with the “marriage” part of the “gay marriage,” and nothing at all to do with the “gay” part of it - isn’t gonna fly.)

If you respect the first amendment, if you are aware of the teachings of various Churches, how can you say that the photographer’s discomfort is “unreasonable”? [The point is not whether it is legal.]

My awareness of what various Churches teach is beside the point. I’m “aware” that astrologers believe you can predict the future of human events by watching the movement of stars. This is unreasonable, because it doesn’t track with reality. And at any rate, just last month, the Presbyterian Church changed its Constitution to recognize same-sex marriage within its congregrations.

EDIT: By the way - you and others frequently argue that why would any gay couple want to be served by someone who thinks their marriage is immoral. So, why not, if such a person is approached by a gay couple, they can just say be honest - say they find same-sex marriage immoral, but they will provide services for it, as the law compels them to?

No lies are being told, no laws are being broken, and odds are, the gay couple will change their mind about being served by such a person.

 

[Rohzek]

Such as…the ‘nature of man’,? the reality of there being 2 sexes? Are there no “universals” - only “relatives”?

That may be. I’m curious as to how you simultaneously hold to your philosophy, and to the Orthodox Church, which has spoken out with concern about the moves to legalise SSM.

Empirically speaking, there are no universals. Whether you believe that there are is another matter. But it isn’t a justified belief in the empirical sense. It’s just conjecture. I conjecturalize that mankind is made in the image of God, but beyond that and what that might mean is very much open to debate.

We’ve gone over the semantics of the Orthodox Church’s statements in another thread, so I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The free exercise clause doesn’t extend to business. A business is not a person and thus does not enjoy the right of religious freedom.

That’s the latest idea. But it won’t hold water.

When the owner of a business is an individual, that person cannot be compelled to do violate his religious convictions.

A corporation is an entity. It cannot be compelled to violate the religious convictions of its directors.

The equal protection clause, provides that** no state **shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.” In other words, the equal protection clause does not apply to individuals, business or corporations.

 

[Rau]

…in principle, there’s no reason a business owner should be punished by the government for declining to serve a gay couple, so long as its for a reason not to do with the couple being gay…

The points I made in above posts were that:

1. you have said you “can’t empathise with the photographer’s discomfort in being “required” to be part of such an event [a gay wedding ceremony]” (because the photographer is being “unreasonable”); and
2. the first amendment and the teaching of religious organisations/churches are relevant to this situation and should at least cause you to agree that the Photographer’s discomfort is not "unreasonable". [Whether declining the job is lawful is a totally different question.]

I can see and empathise with the perspective of the gay couple (unhappy to be declined) - why can’t you see and empathise with the Photographer - compelled to undertake a job which causes him significant discomfort?

You appear to have ignored the point of my remarks, and simply pointed to the “fact” of certain laws.

My awareness of what various Churches teach is beside the point. I’m “aware” that astrologers believe you can predict the future of human events by watching the movement of stars. This is unreasonable, because it doesn’t track with reality. And at any rate, just last month, the Presbyterian Church changed its Constitution to recognize same-sex marriage within its congregrations.

When assessing the relevance of the First Amendment, what Churches teach is not beside the point! The reference to astrology is just a general put-down on religious teaching I suppose? If you are an atheist, I can understand why you might want to lump those who believe in God with fans of astrology, but you should know better.

By the way - you and others frequently argue that why would any gay couple want to be served by someone who thinks their marriage is immoral. So, why not, if such a person is approached by a gay couple, they can just say be honest - say they find same-sex marriage immoral, but they will provide services for it, as the law compels them to? No lies are being told, no laws are being broken, and odds are, the gay couple will change their mind about being served by such a person

That’s a pragmatic suggestion, however it means the decision to participate in the event is out of the hands of the service provider. And by the way, saying “I’m so sorry, but I feel unable to participate at a same sex marriage for personal reasons” - is also entirely honest.

 

[Rau]

…just last month, the Presbyterian Church changed its Constitution to recognize same-sex marriage within its congregrations…

True, this is the largest of Presbyterian group in the USA. They also state they will not compel any of their ministers to officiate at a same sex wedding or to permit SSM in their Church. Presbyterian Ministers get to decide - unlike photographers apparently.

 

[Rosebud77]

Yeah, that’s how many would respond, but I believe we would do better saving individual souls rather than to weep and cry over a change in marriage laws.

I think you are in the wrong church frankly… Resonating with our Anglican bishop Paul Colton… love is all after all ? No limits? Anything goes?

 

[ANV]

I love your mind Robert.

 

[edwest2]

“Same-sex marriage is impossible!” Written by an apologist on Catholic Answers

Ed

Man + Man
Woman + Woman

Does not equal: Man + Woman

Human biology will tell that men and women have complementary sex organs, and that’s the only way we can have new human beings.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Same-sex marriage is impossible!” Written by an apologist on Catholic Answers
Ed
Man + Man
Woman + Woman
Does not equal: Man + Woman
Human biology will tell that men and women have complementary sex organs, and that’s the only way we can have new human beings.

Arise! Thou Necro-Thread!

Ed, I think the single most pertinent issue is that a secular government must not be beholden to any particular faith’s understanding of the word “marriage”. As such, if they’re going to be foolish enough to necessitate for themselves the concept of marriage within the work of secular governance, then they get to undergo the perils of defining it for themselves in that context.

As a demonstration of that reality:
If the secular government suddenly annulled my marriage with my wife by voiding our marriage license, I would still consider myself no less married than I did before because marriage, to me, is more a religious construct.

Obviously, a better and more properly secular system would be one that didn’t employ the concept of marriage at all in its governance.

 

[edwest2]

Arise! Thou Necro-Thread!

Ed, I think the single most pertinent issue is that a secular government must not be beholden to any particular faith’s understanding of the word “marriage”. As such, if they’re going to be foolish enough to necessitate for themselves the concept of marriage within the work of secular governance, then they get to undergo the perils of defining it for themselves in that context.

As a demonstration of that reality:
If the secular government suddenly annulled my marriage with my wife by voiding our marriage license, I would still consider myself no less married than I did before.

Obviously, a better and more properly secular system would be one that didn’t employ the concept of marriage at all in its governance.

This is not a secular government. Religious people have and always will be included except for those radical voices who promote inclusion but who want to exclude us.

Politics is not god.

Ed

 

[Vonsalza]

This is not a secular government. Religious people have and always will be included except for those radical voices who promote inclusion but who want to exclude us.

To be sure, government has been filled with religious people in all places and all times. But ours was uniquely framed to institutionally separate Church and State as much as possible. Fairly radical for the time.

Politics is not god.

No, it is not. Neither is the government’s definition of marriage.

 

[edwest2]

To be sure, government has been filled with religious people in all places and all times. But ours was uniquely framed to institutionally separate Church and State as much as possible. Fairly radical for the time.

No, it is not. Neither is the government’s definition of marriage.

Regarding the first part. It is inaccurate. Government has an establishment clause but it also has a free exercise clause. So when I go to vote, I do not vote by party, I vote for whoever represents the truth the most, just like others vote for what they believe in. Some may argue that I’m wrong, but I retain the right to a secret ballot.

Second, we don’t need government to tell us what marriage is. If a man and woman agree to be together and bring children into this world, long before governments existed, then they are responsible for those children and have the natural obligation to raise them. Period. All cultures had some form of official recognition, including “common law” marriages.

The State within a State has no right to redefine marriage to mean something contrary to human biology. Sure, they can pass laws but I will not accept any law that violates human biology.

Ed