K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
I have a dear friend who is a Baptist minister. He is worried that if SSM laws are passed that the government would force churches to marry same sex couples. Is that possible? 
- Status
N
NoWings
Guest
Your friend is engaging in Chicken Little Syndrome which is most likely a byproduct of listening to conservative talk radio.
No one is going to tell individual churches that they have to change their theology and marry certain persons. It violates the separation of church and state. Though, considering how much religion tries to stick its nose in government business, I find it ironic that the same organizations are terrified about the big, bad government coming to get them.
This, of course, is assuming you live in the United States. I can’t speak for any other country.
No one is going to tell individual churches that they have to change their theology and marry certain persons. It violates the separation of church and state. Though, considering how much religion tries to stick its nose in government business, I find it ironic that the same organizations are terrified about the big, bad government coming to get them.
This, of course, is assuming you live in the United States. I can’t speak for any other country.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Well, today was the day when Proposition 8 from Cali came before the Supreme Court. Ruling should happen in June.
Forcing churches to perform same sex marriages I cant see. However I do see lawsuits being filed against, say, groups like the Knights of Columbus, who are separate groups from the Church, who have buildings that people (including same sex couple) may want to rent to hold receptions.
Same sex marriage are going to happen. One way or the other. They all ready are happening. States have passed laws.
It’s how it all plays out that in the near future that is unclear. And how that impact religious groups, that are not the churches themselves, is yet to be seen.
Forcing churches to perform same sex marriages I cant see. However I do see lawsuits being filed against, say, groups like the Knights of Columbus, who are separate groups from the Church, who have buildings that people (including same sex couple) may want to rent to hold receptions.
Same sex marriage are going to happen. One way or the other. They all ready are happening. States have passed laws.
It’s how it all plays out that in the near future that is unclear. And how that impact religious groups, that are not the churches themselves, is yet to be seen.
M
Marie5890
Guest
You are right, speaking of churches specifically. Its the broader questions, say, the Knights of Columbus oraganization, if they will be forced to rent their halls to same sex couples against their consciences, that isnt clear.
J
jrtrent
Guest
I wonder if there are parallels in the legal battles waged by Jehovah’s Witnesses over issues like the Pledge of Allegiance, not serving in the military, and door-to-door proselytizing (not to mention the many personal, physical attacks by those who saw them as un-patriotic). I don’t see how a church can be forced to marry same-sex couples, but it does seem possible that such churches could be deprived of tax benefits or suffer other legal entanglements.
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
He’s afraid of the non-profit status being taken away and having sanctions put on churches. There hasn’t been governments forcing sanctions and the like in countries that allow SSM, has there?
N
NoWings
Guest
If the Ku Klux Klan, a white Protestant organization, owns a hall and an interracial couple want to rent it and are refused on religious ground (no mixing of two different species), is that a civil rights issue? Are they being discriminated against or is the organization exercising its free expression rights?
It can be murky. If it’s a contract that two parties engage in, like an agreement to rent a facility, then I’d say the church would be in the right, even if I think it’s wrong. However, if it were more than a simple contract, like a Catholic hospital employing a woman who ends up getting married to another woman and they fire her, they’d have a lawsuit on their hands.
That’d be my unofficial guess.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
I believe all churches (like the Catholic Church) that refuse will lose tax exempt status, as they’ll be guilty of “discrimination”. Although gay rights groups will probably “test the waters” by going after small nondenominational independent churches first, and if that succeeds, then go after the Catholic Church and denominations like WELS, LCMS, and Southern Baptist Convention.
In Christ,
Ellen
M
Mystrx
Guest
No. Tell him to read The Bill of Rights, particularly the 1st amendment.I have a dear friend who is a Baptist minister. He is worried that if SSM laws are passed that the government would force churches to marry same sex couples. Is that possible?
C
Christianus_Dei
Guest
Yes, because the 1st Amendment has worked out so well in the recent past.
P
Publisher
Guest
Do you think that the government will tell the Catholic church it is required to marry divorced persons simply because they want to get married in the church? I would think THAT would be more feasable an occurance than requiring same sex marriage ceremonies when divorced persons wanting to remarry far out number those same sex couples who want to get married.I have a dear friend who is a Baptist minister. He is worried that if SSM laws are passed that the government would force churches to marry same sex couples. Is that possible?
Someone yelling “The sky is falling” isn’t a reason to fear.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
The homosexualists can and would force the Catholic Church to bend to their will.
O
owensjo
Guest
As I understand it, a church can only lose it’s tax exempt status if 1) it generates private or unrelated- to- church activity business income, or 2) does not file the proper annual documents with the IRS or 3) engages in electioneering.
A
achmafooma
Guest
Tell that to the Catholic adoption charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC… which had to shut down because they were required by law to adopt to same sex couples.
It’ll start with our charities and nonprofits like it did in those places, then spread from there. Soon enough it’ll be targeted at the church itself. I expect something like a law saying that any religious group that refuses to marry same sex couples is a ‘hate group’ and not tax exempt. And so on.
There isn’t a parallel with the divorce issue. Refusal to recognize divorce and remarriage never got branded as ‘hate’ or labeled as ‘bigotry’.
The First Amendment should protect us. But it didn’t protect our adoption agencies, and it didn’t protect us from the contraception and sterilization and abortofacient mandate. It’s barely worth the parchment it’s written on anymore. Dark times ahead.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
And your guess would be wrong. Such a thing has already happened in the US, and the courts have held, without exception, that no one can be forced to violate their religious consciences for any reason. However, I understand it is different in Canada and the UK
Racial issues are not considered a part of ones religious beliefs in the US.
O
october_baby
Guest
I have experience that might be helpful. My sister married a Canadian.
When Canada passed SSM there was suppose to be a religious exemption.
Just recently, a Canadian pastor was jailed and fined for preaching against homosexuality,
under Canada’s hate crime laws.
When Canada passed SSM there was suppose to be a religious exemption.
Just recently, a Canadian pastor was jailed and fined for preaching against homosexuality,
under Canada’s hate crime laws.
P
PeterJohn
Guest
I would suggest reading wiki on kulturkamph of the mid to late 1800’s. it’s how socialists did similar things against the Church way back when.
R
Rivii
Guest
That’s…
It really makes me wonder what “equality” means to contemporary society. Also about “respect.”
P
Publisher
Guest
Who “forced” them to close their doors? I think they chose to close rather than obey the law…they were not ‘forced’ to close…they made the choice to do so.
A
achmafooma
Guest
The state was compelling religious charities to violate their beliefs…which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. They were forced to choose between violating Catholic moral teachings, or closing down. They chose to close down.
So you’re right, there was another option – but that other option was an even worse violation of our religious liberty. And the officials that passed those laws knew that Catholic charities (at least the faithful ones) would not violate church teaching and would choose to shut down. It was their back-handed way of forcing out the Catholic adoption agencies; give them the impossible choice to either stop being Catholic, or disappear.
I should have been more precise in my wording. They weren’t forced to shut down, but they were certainly forced to stop practicing the Catholic moral teaching. They chose to shut down rather than accept that (and rightfully so). But they should have never been put in that position. The First Amendment is supposed to protect religious individuals and organizations and allow them the free practice of their faith.
God bless.
- Status