Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

[Evie]

If it is part of a religion that "same sex marriages do not occur" and now churches are basically being forced to perform same sex marriages, isn't the government "making a law prohibiting that free exercise of belief"?

And in which fantasy land is this happening, exactly?

The fight over gay marriage is about governmental recognition of gay marriage. Not about church performing of gay marriage, which is an internal matter for each church to decide on its own.

 

[Adjuvant]

Well, people are filing lawsuits. It's just a matter of time, really.

Here. This from Huffington Post:

"Religious leaders who reject same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious liberty are asking for special treatment that tramples on the rights of others. And their religious liberty ends when it begins to infringe on the liberty, religious and otherwise, of others. Because that’s not liberty. That’s oppression. And anti-gay religious groups know nothing about being on the receiving end of it. "

It's just a measured, systematic attack on the church.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think you'll find that public and court based support for forcing Churches, protected by the separation of church and state, to conduct any specific marriage lacking. The idea that you can only have one of the following: government recognized homosexual marriage or religious freedom is a false dichotomy. You can, and we very much should, have both.

Now I wouldn't find it surprising, and would find it predictable if people I would rate very lowly attempt to force churches to administer their sacraments as the government sees fit. But I really think they're going to get tossed out on their ear. At least in this country.

 

[Evie]

Well, people are filing lawsuits. It's just a matter of time, really.

Here. This from Huffington Post:

"Religious leaders who reject same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious liberty are asking for special treatment that tramples on the rights of others. And their religious liberty ends when it begins to infringe on the liberty, religious and otherwise, of others. Because that’s not liberty. That’s oppression. And anti-gay religious groups know nothing about being on the receiving end of it. "

It's just a measured, systematic attack on the church.

I'm going to go on a limb and guess you understood that wrong.

I'd be tempted to put money on the notion that they're talking about religious leaders who actively campaign against government recognition of gay marriage. (As opposed to religious leaders who refuse to perform such marriages).

Nowhere in that sentence does it explicitly say "we want churches to be forced to perform gay marriages".

--------

Besides which, even if they wanted that, it's not going to happen. First because no majority is ever going to stand for that; second because it would be political suicide, and third even if the stars were right and Great Cthulhu himself got such a bill passed, the courts would strike it down for blatantly violating the Constitution.

 

[Adjuvant]

Fair enough.

 

[useless]

Now churches are basically being forced to perform same sex marriages.

[Citation Needed]

 

[Adjuvant]

[Citation Needed]

Sorry, young lady. You're late to the dogpile. I've already been talked down from that one, having misunderstood the filing of lawsuits and such to actual law.

 

[classical_hero]

It is inevitable that churches will have to marry anyone because this will violate so called "equal protection". Just look across the Pond to see what is happening Europe to see that churches are being force to perform ceremonies, just like how those providing any service to a wedding ceremony are being force to cater to same sex couples.

Hmm... Strange, I just skimmed through the Constitution and I couldn't find the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus anywhere! In fact, the closest I got to a direct reference to religion is this:



Yikes, no respect for an establishment of religion whatsoever? That's pretty harsh. It's almost as if most of the founding fathers weren't Christians, and were actually Deists.

To be based on a religion doesn't mean it has to be specifically mentioned.

What they didn't do is make a state church, but give freedom of religion. The first amendment could only ever come under a Christian faith. You certainly won't find any freedom of religion under Islam for example. The Eastern religions are more philosophies than being a true religion, so they don't offer such things and are more into mystical things. The first amendment is a prime example of the US constitution being influenced by Christianity, along with the forth amendment, where we are given the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unless due process ha declared you guilty of a crime where they can be taken away from you

This phrase is often invoked to justify that which is anything but. What a terribly small interpretation of what my values are.

Try living in a contry where Christianity hasn't influenced the law.

It's just a measured, systematic attack on the church.

That is the whole point of this, to remove the foundation from American society. You can see this already happening in Scandinavia. Basically marriage statistics are useless do to the nature of relationships there. More couples are living co-habitation rather than getting married, making marriage rather useless. So when those couples break up the statistics never show them, since they aren't registered, thus break-ups are far higher than what the stats say. But this all fulfilment of what Jesus said about the end times that just like the days of Noah, they were eating, drinking, marrying and given in marriage, basically indulging their sensual senses to their full desires, which is very similar to this times.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's just a measured, systematic attack on the church.

Nope. Again, it is a "measured, systematic attack" on what you personally consider to be the "church". Fortunately, very few other Christians seem to agree.

How would you explain that the majority in a predominately Christian country now support same-sex marriage?

 

[Adjuvant]

Nope. Again, it is a "measured, systematic attack" on what you personally consider to be the "church".

Fortunately, very few other Christians seem to agree.

edit: actually, no. You say what you want and have pudding.

 

[El_Machinae]

If it is part of a religion that "same sex marriages do not occur" and now churches are basically being forced to perform same sex marriages, isn't the government "making a law prohibiting that free exercise of belief"?

No they aren't.

Oh, to be clear, I am completely against the idea of forcing churches to marry people they don't want to marry. A civil servant is an entirely different story, but I'm 100% on the church's side on that front. Forcing people to act against their conscience should only be done sparingly and has to be considered case-by-case.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Which is ironically what Adjuvant is asserting should be done in the opposite direction because he personally feels threatened for no valid reason.

 

[Arachnofiend]

To be based on a religion doesn't mean it has to be specifically mentioned.

I was mainly just making fun of you with the CTRL+F quip. The fact remains that the majority of the people who wrote the constitution were deists and protecting Christianity was never really a priority for them.

You certainly won't find any freedom of religion under Islam for example.

The Muslim Caliphate was notable for its religious tolerance. If you were Orthodox you were better off living under the Arabs than the Crusaders, really.

Historically, it's been western civilizations, especially ones descended from Rome and Greece, that have been particularly intolerant of other faiths. It's only relatively recently that the script has flipped.

 

[Adjuvant]

Which is ironically what Adjuvant is asserting should be done in the opposite direction because he personally feels threatened for no valid reason.

Where do I describe feeling threatened.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Historically, it's been western civilizations, especially ones descended from Rome and Greece, that have been particularly intolerant of other faiths. It's only relatively recently that the script has flipped.

It certainly hasn't flipped in the US where Muslims constantly face religious discrimination since 9/11. The same is true in Europe for even longer.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Equal Protection clause applies to governments, not private religious institutions. If it did, then the Roman Catholic Church would have already been forced to ordain plenty of Jewish and Buddhist priests. Currently there are many churches which refuse to marry anyone but their own members in good standing, and there is no legal grounds to try to change that. There are even churches which still refuse to perform interracial marriage. While these get very bad publicity, I don't think there is any legal case against them either.

No one in his right mind seriously thinks that there is a real chance of the state forcing churches which consider homosexuality to be sinful to perform gay marriages.


You could certainly have freedom of religion in non-Christian societies. Was Cyrus The Great's Empire of the Medes and Persians predominantly Christian five and a half centuries before the birth of Christ?

 

[El_Machinae]

But this all fulfilment of what Jesus said about the end times that just like the days of Noah, they were eating, drinking, marrying and given in marriage, basically indulging their sensual senses to their full desires, which is very similar to this times.

Hmmm, given that the days of Noah were a myth, is Jesus telliing us that the end times are also a myth? If one were to weight Jesus's words appropriately to the modern facts, but assume he had divine insight, that seems to be what he's saying. The alternative is that he either didn't know that Noah was a myth or that he was misquoted.

Oh, and to avoid the dogpiling, I think there's a host of classically 'Christian values' that are fundamentally good things. I don't even care if people want to argue that some of them might be 'pre-Christian', their adoption and (later) transmission by Christianity was a good thing. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Dralix]

The first amendment could only ever come under a Christian faith.

I would argue it could only ever come about under a secular state.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Where do I describe feeling threatened.

Why else would you even care regarding an issue which you clearly have no "vestment"?

Or are you immune to your own rhetoric?

 

[Adjuvant]

Hmmm, given that the days of Noah were a myth, is Jesus telliing us that the end times are also a myth? If one were to weight Jesus's words appropriately to the modern facts, but assume he had divine insight, that seems to be what he's saying. The alternative is that he either didn't know that Noah was a myth or that he was misquoted.

That's a cheap shot. Maybe the deluge wasn't quite as big as the witness portrays, whomever started relating the story from whichever place, but there are flood stories everywhere from Ovid's retelling of Greek oral tradition to the epic of Gilgamesh, both of which predate any written Hebrew.

And so you're bending that to calibrate Jesus' knowledge and intuition? Man, do you have it bad against organized religion, or what.