? about gay marriage

[DonCoquixote]

Can a religion be attacked if they refuse to marry a Gay couple.

I know some churches would happily do so, and will probably profit (UU/Church of Christ/reform Jews/etc) but can a church like the Mormons or Catholics be forced to marry someone?

[PoliticAverse]

1. No. However...

It may be the case that a church is required to provide accommodation (i.e. rent space) to a
couple they would not marry if they provide accommodations to the public. See:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

[dsc]

4. Not in New York, New Hampshire or Vermont

all of which gave religious exemptions.

[murielm99]

7. They already have religious exemptions.

I know the Catholic church does not marry everyone. If someone has been divorced, the priest may not marry them. I know a couple who were married in my United Methodist church because the prospective groom was divorced. The bride was Catholic, and her priest would not marry them. It was not that long ago.

Some churches will not marry people who do not have the premarital counseling by the pastor.

From what I know, it is up to the individual church. There are probably other churches that have other restrictions.

What is the big deal here with religious exemptions?

[ejpoeta]

11. i believe they wanted to make sure they couldn't be sued for not performing weddings.

[yardwork]

17. I think that dsc's meant that rentals can be discriminatory in New York.

I'm astounded by the number of people who seem to think that the government can force a church to marry somebody. That can never happen and nobody is asking for that.

Apparently a lot of people don't understand that being married in the eyes of the state and nation - and being afforded the thousands of legal benefits afforded by the government to married couples - is completely different from the High Mass that some Catholics use to celebrate the sacrament of marriage.

Have these people never heard of being married at the county courthouse?

[dsc]

23. I was referring to the facilities they rent to the public

they also have an exemption for that, which I do have a problem with.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. It's a good question...

I'm not sure there is a correct answer. You'd be better asking if there have been cases where the government has forced a certain faith to perform interracial marriages.

That might answer your question.

Of course, the government could step in and force these religions to perform gay marriages if it becomes the law of the land or threaten to cut off their tax exempt status.

But that same threat could probably be used for other types of marriages - like interfaith or interracial and I've not heard of any case involving the government stepping in and demanding a church do this or that.

The LDS Church will not marry you in the LDS Temple if you're not an upstanding member of their church - no matter what. Legally, I guess they can do that. I'd think this would fall along those same lines, though obviously with a broader definition.

[yardwork]

14. There's no ambiguity. Religious organizations are never required to perform any sacrament.

The government has no power to force any religion to perform any kind of marriage, period. You don't have to worry about that.

This is a misunderstanding that is causing some of the opposition to equal marriage, and it needs to be cleared up. The struggle for equal marriage is a struggle for the right of couples to legally marry under the laws of their state and the nation. We're talking about going down to the courthouse and getting a marriage license, getting married, and then being recognized as married under the laws of the land. Any religious ceremony is totally optional and has no legal standing whatsoever.

For example - John and Mary get a marriage license at the county courthouse in the state of New York. They take that marriage license to their choice of anybody authorized to marry them. That could be a priest in their Catholic parish. It could be a judge or justice of the peace at the courthouse. What is said during the ceremony - vows, etc. - has nothing to do with the legality of the marriage from the point of view of the government. The only thing that matters legally is the signature on the form documenting that they are now married. The religious and spiritual aspects of the ceremony have nothing to do with the legal rights that John and Mary now have as a result of being married in the eyes of their state and nation. This is what gay couples are asking for. We don't want to go crashing into churches that don't want us. We want the right to have the thousands of legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples. That's all.

[Tx4obama]

3. In New York no.

Within a couple hours prior to passing the same-sex marriage bill in New York, the NY state assembly and the NY state senate voted and passed a religious exclusion amendment.
So, no, religious organizations can not be forced to perform marriages, can not be forced to rent out their facilities for one, etc and can not be sued for refusing to do so.

Hope that helps to answer your question.

I don't know about the other states.

[DonCoquixote]

5. cool

I will admit, i was originally a civil union supporter, to try and get religion out of the equation, but since they have insisted on being in the equation, I have "evolved' to where I realize we need that M word. All the same, I think trying to force a church to do it is silly.

[pnwmom]

6. Yes, trying to force them is pretty pointless. You can't force a Catholic

Church to marry two atheists, two Episcopalians -- or even two Catholics for that matter. Priests are free to tell any couple, straight or gay, that they won't marry them. (For example, previously divorced Catholics can't marry, and many priests won't marry a couple who haven't been together for at least a year.)

[RKP5637]

12. Agree! As a non-religious person I could care less if a church likes my

marriage or not, but I realize to others that's important and support that ... but forcing a church to do it is silly and in my book an infringement on their rights.

[yardwork]

18. It would be a constitutional infringement and would never happen.

[yardwork]

20. Religion is already out of the equation for marriage in the eyes of the government.

It's not the word. It's the laws and rights associated with being married. Civil unions don't provide the same rights and benefits.

I think that the confusion is with the word "marriage." In the eyes of the U.S. government and all its states and territories, "marriage" means a purely secular, non-religious legal contract that provides thousands of benefits.

If people choose to celebrate or consecrate their legal marriage with a religious ceremony that is entirely up to them and has nothing to do with the legality of their marriage. A couple can be married by a judge at the county courthouse and they are just as married as a couple who get married in the Mormon Church. The religious ceremony is important to the church but not the government.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. Marriage has always been a civil contract in our country and in colonial times as well.

The legal benefits conferred by marriage have never been bestowed by any religious organization. Marriage is by its very definition a civil union. That's one of the reasons I resist the distinction between "marriage" and "civil union." Too many people associate marriage with a religious wedding already. Having marriage for one type of people and civil union for another exacerbates the discrimination rather than eliminating it. Whether we're talking about the distinction between gay and straight or religious and non-religious.

[yardwork]

15. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees religious exclusions.

Nowhere in the nation, ever, can any religious organization be required by the government to provide any sacrament or religious ceremony for anybody. This is a non-issue.

In New York state the religious exemptions go much further. They give churches the right to deny renting secular spaces to gay people. That will probably be overturned eventually. If a space like an lakefront park is being rented to everybody but gay people that is clearly discriminatory.

[GodlessBiker]

8. Can they be forced to baptize someone?

[yardwork]

21. No. Never.

[GodlessBiker]

22. Same goes for marriage, and divorce, and first communion, and all of that.

[keopeli]

9. a small correction

When you said that among those churches who will probably be happy and profit from performing same-sex marriages was the Church of Christ, I believe you must have meant either the United Church of Christ, or the Disciples of Christ. The Church of Christ is an ultra fundamentalist protestant denomination. Being a formal member of the Church of Christ, I can't believe any, even the most liberal of these churches, would be willing to perform a same-sex marriage.

I know it's semantics, but I hope my personal experience can help clarify what might otherwise be misconstrued as an error.

peace

[ejpoeta]

10. i believe that was one of the things they put in there in NY.... that the

churches would not be able to be sued for not performing ceremonies. Which, I had assumed they were covered already considering they refuse to do weddings for anyone else they don't want to. Like if you aren't a member of the church. At least when my sister got married. She had to join the church and stuff for a certain amount of time I think.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Lots of words I'd change here...

can 'a religion' be 'attacked'. A religion is not an organization but the faith itself. Attacked is one hell of a word, and I tend to make note of the straight habit of using words of combat around this subject. Defend, attack, etc. Why? If the question is about the potential for litigation, why say 'attack'? Was Pearl Harbor a surprise litigation?
Have you read the 1st Amendment? At all?

[Zorra]

16. Good point.

Language speaks volumes, doesn't it?

pun intended

[DonCoquixote]

24. Yes I have

But to treat the matter like it is a simple legal dispute when there are people on both sides fighting over does not serve truth. Bottom line is, this is a subject that does cause people to fight. Like all fights, we have to know what the fight is about, and when we have won. Getting the rights of two people to marry, and enjoy all the rights it implies, is the goal, but trying to force a church to become more tolerant will simply turn a civil fight into a religious one, and, like our current wars, end up in quagmires.

And please do not forget that litigation only came about because it was an alternative to the age old way of getting justice, with violence. There is a reason why they say that stopping peaceful revolt makes violent revolt inevitable. Many LGBT activists have no problem using warlike language, because this is, like it or not ,a war, nor should they apologize for it, since the religious types have declared war on them (as anyone beaten up by bigots can tell you. We are trying to change the law in order that this will not be the civil war that sadly, many seem to want.

[yardwork]

19. No religious organization can ever be forced to marry anybody.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees religious organizations the right to exist and express their religious views without interference from the government. That is the entire point of "separation of church and state." The government can't tell a church who to marry, who to allow in their congregation, who to baptize, etc.

Legal marriage is completely different from the religious ceremonies that may accompany marriage for some couples. Those religious ceremonies have no bearing on whether or not the marriage is legal in the eyes of the government.

As a gay person, I can go out tomorrow and "get married" in any number of churches but that marriage will not be viewed as legal by the state in which I live or my country. I would get zero legal benefits.

When I was married to a man many years ago, we walked down to the courthouse in the county in which we chose to be married. We were given a legal document - a marriage license. Our choice of where we took that legal document was entirely up to us. As it happened, we took it to my hometown church and were married by a minister, endowed by the state in which we married with the authority to perform a legal marriage. He signed our marriage license and we were married in both the eyes of the state and the Episcopal Church. In the eyes of the state, I am now divorced. The Episcopal Church takes a very dim view of my divorce, but this religious organization's views have no bearing on the legal status of my marriage and divorce. And vice-versa. The government that recognizes my divorce has no right to tell the Episcopal Church how to feel.

The struggle for marriage equality is a struggle for the right to marry in the eyes of the government. Period. No church anywhere in the U.S. can ever be forced to marry anybody.

I hope that clears that up.

[MNBrewer]

25. Of course they can be attacked.

Religions can be attacked (criticized) for any reason. FORCED to do something is different. And that's also different from FORCED NOT to do something (e.g., polygamy in the mormon and moslem faiths).

[Creideiki]

26. No church can be forced to solemnize a same-sex marriage

However, I am not obligated to spend my money enriching their followers, especially the ones who directly spend the money I would give them to harm me. That will be a choice they have to make. Of course, fiduciary duty may start cropping up for some of the executives and board members of corporations. Wouldn't that just suck?

[DonCoquixote]

27. Note this

That the reason I mentioned gay friendly churches is because of the old fact: if group a does not do something, group b will. Indeed, I do see such churches, be they reform jews, or the UU's getting more people as a result.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. If the UUs are getting more people as a result...

It's sadly not the congregations with which I'm affiliated. We're not experiencing denominational growth to my knowledge.

[DonCoquixote]

28. I got this from a differennt thread

but it answered this question well, and is worth a read:
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/08/30/six-big-lies-the-freedom-haters-are-spreading-about-proposition-8/

[yardwork]

29. That's Sapphocrat's website. She's awesome. Posts here sometimes.

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. There are no legal repercussions if a denomination or member of the clergy decline...

to officiate a wedding ceremony for any reason. Houses of worship will be no more "forced" to marry same gender couples than they are people of a different faith.

Social repercussions are a different matter. I expect as same gender marriage becomes more widely available and therefore visible, over time it will become generally accepted. Eventually religious organizations that decline to officiate same gender wedding ceremonies will be viewed more negatively.

Couples who decide to marry have many options regarding whom they may choose to officiate their wedding ceremony and complete their state-issued license so being turned away by a particular church is not a hardship in terms of having the marriage solemnized.

Minor semantic quibble -- I see you've already been taken to task a bit for the way you use the words 'religion' and 'attack' so I'll not go there ;-)

Religious organizations, clergy, judicial officers, etc. do not marry a couple. The couple marry one another when they express an intent to be married in front of an authorized witness. Their officiant merely attests to having witnessed them declare that intent. The officiant is an agent of the state, not the religious body, even if the officiant is a member of the clergy and the wedding ceremony takes place inside a church.

Some people do ritualize the start of their marriage in the context of a religious wedding ceremony, some in a courthouse, some on the beach, in a garden, at a bowling alley, at the zoo...Yes, I have presided at a wedding in a bowling alley! I've sat around my parlor coffee table chatting with a couple to get to know them better, then asked them if they wanted to be married to one another for the rest of their lives. They said yes and I signed the certificate.

Too many people confuse weddings with beginning a marriage. You can already be legally married and then have a wedding ceremony. You can have a wedding ceremony that doesn't result in a legal marriage. The ritual isn't what drives the legality.

[yardwork]

32. "The ritual isn't wnat drives the legality."

I'm still astounded that so many people even here on DU don't seem to know that.

Marriage is always a civil contract in the U.S. If people want to add a religious ceremony onto that and be married in the eyes of their religion, that is their choice, but the religious ceremony doesn't make the marriage legal.

[Pacifist Patriot]

33. I once had a woman totally get in my face about marriage being biblically based....

only to find out from her husband they were married at the courthouse before he shipped off to Vietnam. I've found many people are not remotely rational about this subject.

[yardwork]

36. That's because they are brainwashed every Sunday and Wednesday evenings.

[marginlized]

34. Why does this continue to confuse people?

Oh, is there a whole industry in the media sustaining the confusion? To what ends? For what purpose?

My parents were married at a courthouse in 1946. No church required. No church involved. It never has been.

If you're paying attention during the church ceremony, the clergy says "by the power vested in me, I now declare..." the "power" they refer to is the secular State. It's only ever been the State granted licenses which makes marriage legit. Churches have been entirely irrelevant since ... oh at least the mid 19th Century.

[yardwork]

35. Yes, there is a whole industry sustaining the confusion.

It's the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and the fundamentalist Protestant Churches. Their leaders are essentially executives of very large multinational corporations that are incredibly profitable. The profit is derived entirely from convincing millions of people to give them money.

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. To some extent it's also the wedding industry.

If so much emphasis weren't placed on the wedding (the ritual/ceremony and reception/party) as the obligatory event that starts the marriage, people might notice that license thingy a little more.

The very first thing I do when I meet with a couple is explain the marriage license process to them, emphasizing this is one thing they cannot delegate and must do themselves. I repeat frequently how important this document is and have a disclaimer on my officiating contract that failure to present the license will result in a symbolic ceremony after which they will not be legally married. I also include a written explanation of the process in their informational packet. My final communication with them prior to their wedding day asks whom they have designated to hand me the license when I arrive.

Yet just a couple of months ago I had a bride look at me with a blank expression when I asked her for the license (she hadn't responded to my final email and I couldn't reach her by phone), and say, "I thought you got that for us." WHAT?!

Honestly, you can guide people by the nose and they still think it's the bloody wedding that renders them married.

[yardwork]

38. I didn't realize that. Thank you for posting about that. It explains a lot.

I was married a long time ago, when spending $10,000 on a wedding was considered to be a lot of money. I've vaguely noticed that in the past couple of decades things have changed.