SSM has been legal in several states for awhile now. How many churches have been sued (much less successfully sued) in that time for refusing to perform SSM ceremonies?
Agreed. This is all just wild speculation. But since everyone seems to be having so much fun, please allow me to join in.
It is not the marriage that stands in the way of a Catholic school hiring a person a party to a same sex marriage, but rather the individual’s evident inability or unwillingness to commit to the behavioural obligations written into the employment arrangements of Catholic school,teachers.Agreed. This is all just wild speculation. But since everyone seems to be having so much fun, please allow me to join in.
I suspect the Supreme Court will rule is such a way that essentially legalizes same-sex marriage, but I seriously doubt that religions that regulate marriage among their members will be forced to go along. As someone above already noted, how a religious organization administers it’s sacraments, ordinances, or whatever a particular religion calls it’s rituals is pretty much protected by the Constitution. The Court is interested only in the regulation of civil marriage.
Now, when it comes to applying the law to religious-affiliated institutions such as schools and hospitals that offer their services to the public, there might be a problem. For example, I can envision a Catholic school being prosecuted for discrimination for it’s refusal to hire someone who is party to a same-sex civil marriage.
It’s going be interesting to see how this plays out.
This is NOT correct.
I taught at a Catholic school and my contract had a clause that I would not teach the students anything contrary to the faith, including by the example of my personal life.
I’d hardly call a **unanimous **decision of the Supreme Court with a sharp rebuke for the government two years ago as “the past”.
The case in question did not directly address same sex marriage. It addressed the “ministerial exception” - the idea that a religious organization is not subject to certain anti-discrimination statues when it comes to hiring/firing employees who function as “ministers.” It’s easy to see, however, that this could be applied to a case involving parties to a same-sex marriage who were also Catholic school teachers.
It is my understanding that the current case is in regard to independent indiviudals who want same-sex relations to be considered a valid marriage in all states. This is essentually different from the roles of ministers,employers, and employees. It is granting all people, regardless of faith, the freedom from responsible sexual morality.
That depends on gay people. If they want children they will have to have some sort of relationship with the opposite sex. If they want their same sex relationship to be called a marriage …well it can’t be. Because it is not a marriage.
No, but it would prevent other people from being forced to accept as valid a marriage which is not and can never be marriage. The ministerial exemption will certainly apply to churches. But if a Catholic school fires a teacher for entering into a public same sex marriage, thereby teaching students by example that same sex marriage is okay, the school will likely be sued.
True. We - myself included - kind of got off-track.
If SSMs were banned, the teacher wouldn’t be able to enter into a public SSM, and thus, wouldn’t be fired for doing so, and thus, the Catholic school wouldn’t get sued for doing the firing.
True. Somehow we got sidetracked and started talking about Hosanna-Tabor rather than the current case which directly addresses same-sex marriage.
That is obvious…but no one is BANNING anything. This is about the redefining of traditional marriage to include same sex relationships. It is about government recognition of a same sex relationship as a marriage. It is about states that recognize marriage as between one man and one woman…no one is BANNED.
I can worship God from anywhere, even my bath tub.