Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[Guest]

I can't walk into any church as a heterosexual and expect the pastor to marry me, to a man I mean lol, not to the pastor.  A church is qualitatively different than a bakery.  A church is a religious institution and I do not believe that churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples.  I think it is a scare tactic.  A bakery is a different thing, and as I have stated in a previous discussion on this topic, I don't think following nondiscrimination laws required to sell goods or services to the public means you condone gay marriage.  I know others disagree, but to me baking a cake for a paying customer is not condoning anything.  A cake is not a marriage.  The marriage happens regardless of the cake.  The cake is just dessert.

 

LOL.

 

This is the reason I do not support a pastor not willing to marry people who did not believe were following the laws of his religion if he was officiating a legally binding union. If it were a religious ceremony only, sure - offer what your religion offers. If it's a legally binding contract recognized by the secular state, religious beliefs should no more be allowed to influence an individual's experience than in schools. In other words, if one is going to offer a service to the public, religious beliefs should not be a reason to discriminate. 

 

I don't know that I would necessarily go so far as to consider this persecution. I'm not familiar with an argument to support that and I couldn't offer one myself.

 

That right there is forcing someone to do something against their religion.  This is a huge deal and why Christians are very concerned about their futures.

[albeto.]

That right there is forcing someone to do something against their religion.  This is a huge deal and why Christians are very concerned about their futures.

 

It's not against the Christian religion to not offer a legally binding contract. 

 

I'm not advocating not offering weddings or other religious ceremonies, just not legally binding operations recognized by the state. Make sense? 

[Guest]

It's not against the Christian religion to not offer a legally binding contract. 

 

I'm not advocating not offering weddings or other religious ceremonies, just not legally binding operations recognized by the state. Make sense? 

 

So, a pastor should only be able to legally marry someone if they agree to marry homosexual couples?  Do you not see the horror of this?

[marbel]

This is the reason I do not support a pastor not willing to marry people who did not believe were following the laws of his religion if he was officiating a legally binding union. If it were a religious ceremony only, sure - offer what your religion offers. If it's a legally binding contract recognized by the secular state, religious beliefs should no more be allowed to influence an individual's experience than in schools. In other words, if one is going to offer a service to the public, religious beliefs should not be a reason to discriminate. 

 

I don't know that I would necessarily go so far as to consider this persecution. I'm not familiar with an argument to support that and I couldn't offer one myself.

 

Just because it is a legally binding union does not mean it is a service offered to the public at large.  Many pastors will only perform marriage ceremonies for members of the congregation.  If people choose to get married in a Christian church, they are also choosing to have the religious beliefs of the church influence their experience.  What you are saying makes no sense, unless you want to punish people by forcing them to choose between a religious ceremony and a legal ceremony, or by forcing them to have two ceremonies.

 

But this is one of the reasons it is not just a scare tactic (as a pp said) that pastors will eventually be forced to conduct ceremonies they disagree with or close their church doors.  Anecdote:  an acquaintance told me that she would love to put the Christian church "out of business" by asking a pastor to perform her lesbian wedding and having him refuse so she can file a complaint, etc.  There is no reason to think she is the only person to think this way, and no reason to think this won't happen.

[kiana]

This is the reason I do not support a pastor not willing to marry people who did not believe were following the laws of his religion if he was officiating a legally binding union. If it were a religious ceremony only, sure - offer what your religion offers. If it's a legally binding contract recognized by the secular state, religious beliefs should no more be allowed to influence an individual's experience than in schools. In other words, if one is going to offer a service to the public, religious beliefs should not be a reason to discriminate. 

 

I don't know that I would necessarily go so far as to consider this persecution. I'm not familiar with an argument to support that and I couldn't offer one myself.

I actually would have no objection to completely removing the legally binding part from religious marriages. You stop at the church for your wedding, and either before or afterwards, stop at the courthouse for your civil union.

 

However, in my opinion here, a minister is not necessarily offering a service to the public. S/he is offering a service to the members of the congregation. I don't see an issue with a minister, for example, requiring people to be members of his/her church to be married there. Similarly, I may not be able to get married in a private club when I'm not a member.

[kiana]

So, we agree about the pastor.  The judge one is trickier for me.  I'm completely against it, but if it's going to happen, regardless... couldn't a colleague who didn't object to it marry them instead?  The school teacher should leave beliefs out of it, which is why she should not be forced to teach someone else's belief.  I honestly do not understand this topic being brought up in schools, beyond treating everyone kindly.

 

ETA: it's difficult because most here are homeschoolers, so many do not know how it is presented in school.  My kids went for the past year, and it was not talked about (that I know of).  I've just heard from friends in other areas what is said.

 

I don't believe that civil servants should be able to discriminate for any reason, religious or otherwise, against people who are following the law. There was a case in Louisiana not long ago where a judge refused to marry an interracial couple, citing religious beliefs. He is no longer a judge, and I believe this is appropriate.

 

I'm not really sure what you believe she's being forced to teach, but if, for example, she's being forced to present information on homosexual sex in sex ed class, I would consider that entirely appropriate. I would consider it extremely INappropriate to leave it out or present it in a derogatory manner because your beliefs are that it is a sin. 

[Denise in Florida]

I think they are... they are asked to support something that is against their beliefs, and if they don't they are called bigots and other names... to what?  Shame them into submission?

 

I think what the others are trying to say is that you don't have to 'support' gay marriage. You just have to not ban it for other people.  

[SadieMarie]

Correct me if I am wrong (like I need to ask lol) but we were married by a minister (at a country club lol, not a church, but I digress) and there was a form or something for the state.  It seems like we had to do something besides just have her declare us man and wife, I mean from a legal point of view.  A justice of the peace was what we had originally planned but the family went ape---- so we found a minister.  In fact we definitely had to get some paperwork from the county, marriage license, before the ceremony.  OK, I remember.  We had a girl friend of mine come with us because we needed a witness.  And when the person at the courthouse asked who was the witness DH said that he was.  This was before gay marriage was legal here.  She looked a bit taken aback lol. 

[Guest]

Just because it is a legally binding union does not mean it is a service offered to the public at large.  Many pastors will only perform marriage ceremonies for members of the congregation.  If people choose to get married in a Christian church, they are also choosing to have the religious beliefs of the church influence their experience.  What you are saying makes no sense, unless you want to punish people by forcing them to choose between a religious ceremony and a legal ceremony, or by forcing them to have two ceremonies.

 

But this is one of the reasons it is not just a scare tactic (as a pp said) that pastors will eventually be forced to conduct ceremonies they disagree with or close their church doors.  Anecdote:  an acquaintance told me that she would love to put the Christian church "out of business" by asking a pastor to perform her lesbian wedding and having him refuse so she can file a complaint, etc.  There is no reason to think she is the only person to think this way, and no reason to think this won't happen.

 

Exactly.  You said exactly what I was thinking.  I've been on and off of this thread all day, so I'm losing steam.  

 

This is what Christians are being faced with.

[Guest]

I actually would have no objection to completely removing the legally binding part from religious marriages. You stop at the church for your wedding, and either before or afterwards, stop at the courthouse for your civil union.

 

However, in my opinion here, a minister is not necessarily offering a service to the public. S/he is offering a service to the members of the congregation. I don't see an issue with a minister, for example, requiring people to be members of his/her church to be married there. Similarly, I may not be able to get married in a private club when I'm not a member.

 

Like Marbel just asked... why anyone want to have two ceremonies?  This is just undermining the church entirely.  People married in a church aren't really married unless they go the civil route.  How is this not stripping rights from Christians?  The right to marry in the church would be stripped if it's not legally binding.  Do those of you in favor of this really not see how wrong this is?

[Denise in Florida]

Should we vote for a law that is AGAINST our beliefs?

 

YES, you can say you would not choose a gay marriage, but it is wrong to deny basic civil rights to others. 

 

If you want your beliefs to be the basis for how you live your life, why should you deny other people the right to live by their beliefs. 

[kiana]

Like Marbel just asked... why anyone want to have two ceremonies?  This is just undermining the church entirely.  People married in a church aren't really married unless they go the civil route.  How is this not stripping rights from Christians?  The right to marry in the church would be stripped if it's not legally binding.  Do those of you in favor of this really not see how wrong this is?

 

I don't see it as two ceremonies, because I would remove the ceremony entirely unless people WANT a civil ceremony. Two people would stop at the courthouse, sign in front of a clerk that they are now married, and move on. Should take less than five minutes. We can bump them to the front of the line. :)

 

ETA: We could also just go for nationwide self-uniting marriage being legal, as Pennsylvania has had for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage

[Guest]

I don't see it as two ceremonies, because I would remove the ceremony entirely unless people WANT a civil ceremony. Two people would stop at the courthouse, sign in front of a clerk that they are now married, and move on. Should take less than five minutes. We can bump them to the front of the line. :)

 

ETA: We could also just go for nationwide self-uniting marriage being legal, as Pennsylvania has had for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage

After their real fake wedding, before their honeymoon?  That would be awful.  Why not just leave them be and let a church wedding be legal?

[albeto.]

So, a pastor should only be able to legally marry someone if they agree to marry homosexual couples?  Do you not see the horror of this?

 

No, a pastor should serve the public if s/he offers a public service. Religious services are not public. A religious marriage would conform to the beliefs and tenets of the religious community. 

 

State marriage license serves the public, and if conditions are met for the public, they should be honored by anyone who offers this service. The same requirement would be made if a church pastor signs a legal marriage certificate as if a county judge signs the legal marriage certificate. 

 

Separation of church and state would solve this. Churches could hold their marriage ceremonies for those who qualify according to their religious beliefs. State licenses would be issued according to legal qualifications. But if a church pastor is going to act as a representative of the state, religious discrimination is unjustified, in my opinion. 

 

This is not horrifying to me. It protects religious organizations by allowing religious ceremonies to exist without state infringement. 

[kiana]

After their real fake wedding, before their honeymoon?  That would be awful.  Why not just leave them be and let a church wedding be legal?

 

As awful as not being able to get married?

 

I believe there are a couple European states (I've forgotten which and don't have the energy right now to look) which have something like that and it seems to work well for them.

 

ETA: Belgium for sure -- http://belgium.usembassy.gov/marriage-in-belgium.html

[chocolatechip]

I don't see it as two ceremonies, because I would remove the ceremony entirely unless people WANT a civil ceremony. Two people would stop at the courthouse, sign in front of a clerk that they are now married, and move on. Should take less than five minutes. We can bump them to the front of the line. :)

I seem to remember (could definitely be wrong, though) that someone was telling me this is how it works for Christian couples in some European country? 

 

FWIW, as a Christian as well, from my perspective I don't really take issue with it. The civil form would be a "hoop" to jump through. I would consider myself married as soon as my Church ceremony was over. But to "register" per se with the civil government doesn't seem like too horrible of a thing. Am I somehow missing something here?

 

It's getting late. Maybe my brain is muddled, lol! 

[albeto.]

Just because it is a legally binding union does not mean it is a service offered to the public at large.  Many pastors will only perform marriage ceremonies for members of the congregation.  If people choose to get married in a Christian church, they are also choosing to have the religious beliefs of the church influence their experience.  What you are saying makes no sense, unless you want to punish people by forcing them to choose between a religious ceremony and a legal ceremony, or by forcing them to have two ceremonies.

 

But this is one of the reasons it is not just a scare tactic (as a pp said) that pastors will eventually be forced to conduct ceremonies they disagree with or close their church doors.  Anecdote:  an acquaintance told me that she would love to put the Christian church "out of business" by asking a pastor to perform her lesbian wedding and having him refuse so she can file a complaint, etc.  There is no reason to think she is the only person to think this way, and no reason to think this won't happen.

 

I'm not sure I follow. Why would offering a religious ceremony independently from the legally binding contract force a church to close its doors? 

 

As far as your anecdote, churches are closing their doors because they're loosing followers. People are simply not interested in the service it provides in the same measure as was enjoyed in the past. I can't imagine how a person demanding to be married under a system that is not required to provide that marriage service would close a church down. 

[Greta]

This is the reason I do not support a pastor not willing to marry people who did not believe were following the laws of his religion if he was officiating a legally binding union. If it were a religious ceremony only, sure - offer what your religion offers. If it's a legally binding contract recognized by the secular state, religious beliefs should no more be allowed to influence an individual's experience than in schools. In other words, if one is going to offer a service to the public, religious beliefs should not be a reason to discriminate.

My church does not offer marriage as a service to the public. It offers marriage as a Holy Sacrament to baptized, chrismated members of the church. But it also follows the local laws by submitting the necessary paperwork. So may I ask for clarification about exactly what you are proposing in such a case?

 

ETA: I see that you posted a couple more times during the time that I was writing this.

[albeto.]

I actually would have no objection to completely removing the legally binding part from religious marriages. You stop at the church for your wedding, and either before or afterwards, stop at the courthouse for your civil union.

 

However, in my opinion here, a minister is not necessarily offering a service to the public. S/he is offering a service to the members of the congregation. I don't see an issue with a minister, for example, requiring people to be members of his/her church to be married there. Similarly, I may not be able to get married in a private club when I'm not a member.

 

I can see this, I think, but churches offer wedding ceremonies to non members all the time. Would it be solved by only marrying members [in good standing]? 

[Guest]

No, a pastor should serve the public if s/he offers a public service. Religious services are not public. A religious marriage would conform to the beliefs and tenets of the religious community.

 

State marriage license serves the public, and if conditions are met for the public, they should be honored by anyone who offers this service. The same requirement would be made if a church pastor signs a legal marriage certificate as if a county judge signs the legal marriage certificate.

 

Separation of church and state would solve this. Churches could hold their marriage ceremonies for those who qualify according to their religious beliefs. State licenses would be issued according to legal qualifications. But if a church pastor is going to act as a representative of the state, religious discrimination is unjustified, in my opinion.

 

This is not horrifying to me. It protects religious organizations by allowing religious ceremonies to exist without state infringement.

So, like I said, for a pastor to be able to legally marry someone, they would have to agree to marriages against their religion? That is wrong on so many levels and exactly why Christians are taking a stand.

[marbel]

I don't see it as two ceremonies, because I would remove the ceremony entirely unless people WANT a civil ceremony. Two people would stop at the courthouse, sign in front of a clerk that they are now married, and move on. Should take less than five minutes. We can bump them to the front of the line. :)

 

ETA: We could also just go for nationwide self-uniting marriage being legal, as Pennsylvania has had for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage

 

People who want to get married in a church have to obtain a license.  They go to the courthouse and swear to various things and come out with a license and a certificate. The pastor completes the certificate after the wedding has been performed and it is sent back to the county to be filed.   (This is my understanding of the law, anyway.) 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Albeto. but it sounds as if she is proposing that the wedding at the church would not be legally binding; the wedding has to be performed at the courthouse.   Of course if people would like a religious ceremony they would be welcome to do that in addition. 

 

I know I will be corrected if I am wrong. ;)

 

ETA: After reading a followup I see that the church could offer a legally binding marriage if they would agree to marry anyone who walked in the door.  Is that correct?

 

[Guest]

I seem to remember (could definitely be wrong, though) that someone was telling me this is how it works for Christian couples in some European country?

 

FWIW, as a Christian as well, from my perspective I don't really take issue with it. The civil form would be a "hoop" to jump through. I would consider myself married as soon as my Church ceremony was over. But to "register" per se with the civil government doesn't seem like too horrible of a thing. Am I somehow missing something here?

 

It's getting late. Maybe my brain is muddled, lol!

We already do what the government wants by getting a marriage license. This other idea is saying a pastor cannot legally marry you the way they can now, and only would be able to If he married any and everyone, including those forbidden in the Bible. It's like a punishment for not marrying homosexual couples. You won't marry them in your church? Well, then you can't marry anyone!

[kiana]

People who want to get married in a church have to obtain a license.  They go to the courthouse and swear to various things and come out with a license and a certificate. The pastor completes the certificate after the wedding has been performed and it is sent back to the county to be filed.   (This is my understanding of the law, anyway.) 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Albeto. but it sounds as if she is proposing that the wedding at the church would not be legally binding; the wedding has to be performed at the courthouse.   Of course if people would like a religious ceremony they would be welcome to do that in addition. 

 

I know I will be corrected if I am wrong. ;)

 

 

Well, the way it already works in some countries is that you go to the courthouse and swear to various things and come out with a wedding certificate -- i.e. at that point, you are legally married. Then you go have your religious ceremony.

[Guest]

People who want to get married in a church have to obtain a license. They go to the courthouse and swear to various things and come out with a license and a certificate. The pastor completes the certificate after the wedding has been performed and it is sent back to the county to be filed. (This is my understanding of the law, anyway.)

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Albeto. but it sounds as if she is proposing that the wedding at the church would not be legally binding; the wedding has to be performed at the courthouse. Of course if people would like a religious ceremony they would be welcome to do that in addition.

 

I know I will be corrected if I am wrong. ;)

 

That's how I understood it and why I am so shocked. Things really are going down (excuse the slang) the way Christians have been predicting for a long time.

[Caroline]

We already do what the government wants by getting a marriage license. This other idea is saying a pastor cannot legally marry you the way they can now, and only would be able to I'd he married any and everyone, including those forbidden in the Bible. It's like a punishment for not marrying homosexual couples. You won't marry them in your church? Well, then you can't marry anyone!

And yet, you don't want homosexual couples to be able to marry at all. Not in a courthouse. Not anywhere. Do you not see the irony here?

[Wheres Toto]

Should we vote for a law that is AGAINST our beliefs?

 

 

There's a difference between voting for something and just not voting against it.  Nobody wants to force Christians to vote against their convictions, just to stop voting in a way that forces those convictions upon everyone else. 

[chocolatechip]

So, like I said, for a pastor to be able to legally marry someone, they would have to agree to marriages against their religion? That is wrong on so many levels and exactly why Christians are taking a stand.

I feel like I'm missing something. I guess I don't understand why it's important that a pastor be able to legally marry. If they can marry before God, isn't that what we want? Then we can get civilly registered as married before the civil government.

We already do what the government wants by getting a marriage license. This other idea is saying a pastor cannot legally marry you the way they can now, and only would be able to I'd he married any and everyone, including those forbidden in the Bible. It's like a punishment for not marrying homosexual couples. You won't marry them in your church? Well, then you can't marry anyone!

Well, I believe my priest has the authority to marry me and the man who will be my husband before God regardless of whether or not the civil government recognizes it as a legal marriage. So I guess my response to the government saying that my priest can't legally marry me would be, "Whatever. Think what you want." I could get married before God in church by my priest and then go to a civil courthouse to get "registered" as a married couple. 

[*Lulu*]

Like Marbel just asked... why anyone want to have two ceremonies? This is just undermining the church entirely. People married in a church aren't really married unless they go the civil route. How is this not stripping rights from Christians? The right to marry in the church would be stripped if it's not legally binding. Do those of you in favor of this really not see how wrong this is?

How is that undermining the church?

 

I have spent my entire life hearing my very conservative family members bemoaning the government's intrusion into matters of the church. (To be fair....they bemoan almost everything the government does or doesn't do based on who is in power.)

 

If the civil requirements and religious ceremonies were separated would that not be allowing the church the best of both worlds?

[KarenNC]

I can't walk into any church as a heterosexual and expect the pastor to marry me, to a man I mean lol, not to the pastor.  A church is qualitatively different than a bakery.  A church is a religious institution and I do not believe that churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples.  I think it is a scare tactic.  A bakery is a different thing, and as I have stated in a previous discussion on this topic, I don't think following nondiscrimination laws required to sell goods or services to the public means you condone gay marriage.  I know others disagree, but to me baking a cake for a paying customer is not condoning anything.  A cake is not a marriage.  The marriage happens regardless of the cake.  The cake is just dessert.

 

Various ministers within the last 10 years have refused to marry several people I know for a variety of reasons---not a member of their congregation, living together, bride was pregnant, one of the parties was divorced, etc. None of these conditions are a barrier to legal marriage and the couples went on to either find another minister or to have a civil ceremony. To the best of my knowledge, Roman Catholic priests are not required to marry couples who are interfaith or where one of the parties is divorced, and that has not been an issue for many decades.

[Scrub Jay]

You just don't understand the Christian POV, obviously.  I have no hate toward anyone.  I don't think anyone is less than.  At the same time, I don't have to vote for something I think is against the Bible and not agreeing with it means I am being unfair.  

 

If you have a basic human right allowed for you but do not allow another to have the same basic human right because a book and a religion says so, then you are telling that group of people they are less than you.  Denying this does not change the evidence of voting against this basic human right.

 

Imagine if there were propositions on the ballot trying to prevent or take away your own marriage (if you are married)?  Do you really believe that the people voting against your right to marry see you as an equal?  I know for a fact I would not view such an assault on my marriage so neutrally.  I would definitely feel that these voters felt I was beneath them, subhuman, not worth having a marriage.

 

One of my gay friends, who is married and has a daughter, said it perfectly when linking an article about one of these anti-gay marriage props on FB: "Why won't these people keep their hands off of my family?!"

 

Heart wrenching.

 

[Greta]

I feel like I'm missing something. I guess I don't understand why it's important that a pastor be able to legally marry. If they can marry before God, isn't that what we want? Then we can get civilly registered as married before the civil government.

Well, I believe my priest has the authority to marry me and the man who will be my husband before God regardless of whether or not the civil government recognizes it as a legal marriage. So I guess my response to the government saying that my priest can't legally marry me would be, "Whatever. Think what you want." I could get married before God in church by my priest and then go to a civil courthouse to get "registered" as a married couple.

I agree, this sounds very reasonable to me personally.

[chocolatechip]

Another thought: my Church marriage means everything to my marriage. The Sacrament of Marriage weds a man and a woman into one flesh. 

 

The legal portion? It changes the way the government relates to me and to the man who is my husband (i.e., we file taxes as "married" instead of single, ect). It doesn't change the way I relate to my husband. 

 

I guess to me it's kind of like a diploma. The important thing (at least to me) is the learning gained in high school, not some paper that says I finished high school. The paper is a recognition by the state/country of the learning. I don't need the state/country to recognize that I have learned to know that I've learned.

 

A "legal" marriage (to me) is a recognition by the state/country that I'm married. But if I'm married before God, then to have the civil government also say that I'm married is really pretty much non-important. I mean, if God says I'm married, I know I'm married! Who else's word do I need? 

 

Not to say that I'm some crazy person who would get married but not also register legally. There's no reason I would refuse to be civilly recognized as married as of now. 

[PeacefulChaos]

Various ministers within the last 10 years have refused to marry several people I know for a variety of reasons---not a member of their congregation, living together, bride was pregnant, one of the parties was divorced, etc. None of these conditions are a barrier to legal marriage and the couples went on to either find another minister or to have a civil ceremony. To the best of my knowledge, Roman Catholic priests are not required to marry couples who are interfaith or where one of the parties is divorced, and that has not been an issue for many decades.

 

This.

 

Also, IIRC, it's relatively easy for ANYONE to do what is needed to legally marry someone (as the officiant, obviously).  People are free to say no if they have the credentials to and choose not to, though.  I mean, seriously??

 

I wouldn't vote against gay marriage.  And now I seriously feel like this blow has been struck to me because all this time, people (general) have said, it isn't like it would infringe on religion.  It isn't like pastors would be forced to do something that they are religiously against.  

And suddenly, now, it's 'Just take away the legal right for pastors to marry people.'  

 

In theory, does everything sound super hard?  No.  But it's the thought.  It's the fact that over and over again, I've heard as a Christian how thankful people are that I'm not voting against gay rights, and that I've been explicitly told multiple times that they wouldn't ever try to push for a marriage by someone who didn't believe in it because of their religion - I mean really, who would want that, anyway? - and here now I kind of feel lied to.  Like they were all lying.  

 

I'm just sort of shocked and taken aback.  I really don't know what else to say.

[kiana]

Not to say that I'm some crazy person who would get married but not also register legally. There's no reason I would refuse to be civilly recognized as married as of now. 

I have actually heard of cases where a couple wanted a non-binding religious-only ceremony. As I recall, it was something along the lines where they were both elderly and a legal marriage would result in her no longer receiving her deceased husband's pension checks, without which the couple would have been unable to live independently.

[SKL]

I don't think anything is broke enough to need fixing re church marriages, since anyone and everyone who can legally marry is able to do this via non-religious means.  Kinda like as long as kids are able to go to public school, who cares if there is also a fundamentalist private school available?  It also bears noting that there are more and more churches that voluntarily perform non-traditional weddings.  And also, there are plenty of heterosexual, religious people who don't get married in a church.  For example, my parents and all of my married siblings had it done outside of a church, and only two of those four couples involved a clerical person at all.  Clearly getting married in a church is not essential to human happiness.

 

However, IF a fix were needed, it would make more sense to make everyone go to a civil office to get a legal marriage certificate, than to tell churches how the religious service of providing religious weddings must / must not be done.

 

Like when a baby is born, you get the birth certificate from some secular place, but if you want religion involved, you can go to your church and do an infant baptism or dedication or bris or whatever your faith leads you to do.

[bibiche]

In France, everyone who wants to get married has to have a civil marriage: you go to city hall, you get married. If you want to, afterwards you can go have a religious marriage. I think it is the ideal solution. Separation of church and state. Everyone is happy.

[marbel]

How is that undermining the church?

 

I have spent my entire life hearing my very conservative family members bemoaning the government's intrusion into matters of the church. (To be fair....they bemoan almost everything the government does or doesn't do based on who is in power.)

 

If the civil requirements and religious ceremonies were separated would that not be allowing the church the best of both worlds?

 

I like the way you think but I am not sure I'm following here. 

 

I just talked to a pastor to be sure my understanding is correct.  Currently the government is involved.  People who want to get married have to get a license.  The pastor or priest simply signs as the officiant when the ceremony has been completed, saying "it's done."  It has already been "approved" (for lack of a better word) by the government when the couple appears before a judge (clerk? not sure) and swears that they have the right to marry, are not blood-related, etc.  (I am not sure of all the things they swear to.)    The way he sees it, a proposal to disallow priests/pastors to perform the legal marriage unless they are willing to marry all comers would add a layer of complexity for the couple.  And possibly longer wait times at the courthouse.  It would not change anything for him except that he wouldn't be signing the marriage certificate.  I suppose it might cut down on the number of people he would marry, as some couples might not bother to go through the religious ceremony, though since he only marries people who attend his church, he did not expect that to come up because they want a religious ceremony.

 

If the civil requirements and religious ceremonies were separated, you would still need the civil requirements in order to have a legal marriage. So I'm not sure where you end up with the best of both worlds, as you say?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Another thought: my Church marriage means everything to my marriage. The Sacrament of Marriage weds a man and a woman into one flesh.

 

The legal portion? It changes the way the government relates to me and to the man who is my husband (i.e., we file taxes as "married" instead of single, ect). It doesn't change the way I relate to my husband.

 

I guess to me it's kind of like a diploma. The important thing (at least to me) is the learning gained in high school, not some paper that says I finished high school. The paper is a recognition by the state/country of the learning. I don't need the state/country to recognize that I have learned to know that I've learned.

 

A "legal" marriage (to me) is a recognition by the state/country that I'm married. But if I'm married before God, then to have the civil government also say that I'm married is really pretty much non-important. I mean, if God says I'm married, I know I'm married! Who else's word do I need?

 

Not to say that I'm some crazy person who would get married but not also register legally. There's no reason I would refuse to be civilly recognized as married as of now.

The Bible speaks about the law of the land. What if the law of the land is saying you are not married to your husband? If anyone can marry before God, and not need to do it legally, why don't homosexual couples think that it enough when they just say they are married and God approves? Why would they want the legal recognition?

 

You are willing to give up your rights, it seems! Are you willing to say its fine if your church marriage means absolutely nothing to anyone else? You are fine with not being legally married? I don't think you are seeing the ramifications of this. I hope someone else can jump in here.... I'm on an ipad and I hate ting on it, plus I've been on here way too much and I'm mentally tired... need something light-hearted.

[Guest]

This.

 

Also, IIRC, it's relatively easy for ANYONE to do what is needed to legally marry someone (as the officiant, obviously). People are free to say no if they have the credentials to and choose not to, though. I mean, seriously??

 

I wouldn't vote against gay marriage. And now I seriously feel like this blow has been struck to me because all this time, people (general) have said, it isn't like it would infringe on religion. It isn't like pastors would be forced to do something that they are religiously against.

And suddenly, now, it's 'Just take away the legal right for pastors to marry people.'

 

In theory, does everything sound super hard? No. But it's the thought. It's the fact that over and over again, I've heard as a Christian how thankful people are that I'm not voting against gay rights, and that I've been explicitly told multiple times that they wouldn't ever try to push for a marriage by someone who didn't believe in it because of their religion - I mean really, who would want that, anyway? - and here now I kind of feel lied to. Like they were all lying.

 

I'm just sort of shocked and taken aback. I really don't know what else to say.

I knew it was all just to appease while certain agendas could be accomplished, but I'm still shocked at actually hearing (reading) it.

[Guest]

In France, everyone who wants to get married has to have a civil marriage: you go to city hall, you get married. If you want to, afterwards you can go have a religious marriage. I think it is the ideal solution. Separation of church and state. Everyone is happy.

Seems very complicated. Then, you could divorce in one institute, but not the other.

[Guest]

I like the way you think but I am not sure I'm following here.

 

I just talked to a pastor to be sure my understanding is correct. Currently the government is involved. People who want to get married have to get a license. The pastor or priest simply signs as the officiant when the ceremony has been completed, saying "it's done." It has already been "approved" (for lack of a better word) by the government when the couple appears before a judge (clerk? not sure) and swears that they have the right to marry, are not blood-related, etc. (I am not sure of all the things they swear to.) The way he sees it, a proposal to disallow priests/pastors to perform the legal marriage unless they are willing to marry all comers would add a layer of complexity for the couple. And possibly longer wait times at the courthouse. It would not change anything for him except that he wouldn't be signing the marriage certificate. I suppose it might cut down on the number of people he would marry, as some couples might not bother to go through the religious ceremony, though since he only marries people who attend his church, he did not expect that to come up because they want a religious ceremony.

 

If the civil requirements and religious ceremonies were separated, you would still need the civil requirements in order to have a legal marriage. So I'm not sure where you end up with the best of both worlds, as you say?

It would not be the best of both worlds for the Christian couple as they would now have to have two ceremonies. People who don't care about a religious ceremony are the only ones not being affected. It really is a punishment to the Christian pastor for not marrying homosexual couples. That's all there is to it.

[KarenNC]

The Bible speaks about the law of the land. What if the law of the land is saying you are not married to your husband? If anyone can marry before God, and not need to do it legally, why don't homosexual couples think that it enough when they just say they are married and God approves? Why would they want the recognition?

 

You are willing to give up your rights, it seems! Are you willing to say its fine if your church marriage means absolutely nothing to anyone else? You are fine with not being legally married? I don't think you are seeing the ramifications of this. I hope someone else can jump in here.... I'm on an ipad and I hate ting on it, plus I've been on here way too much and I'm mentally tired... need something light-hearted.

 

They want the automatic and freely available legal protections and benefits that come with a legally recognized marriage, just as heterosexual couples do when they seek a legally recognized marriage. The big difference is that they don't have the option to make that choice in many states. Assuming (and it would be a huge assumption) that a separation between religious and civil marriage happened tomorrow, why would you assume that it would be retroactive and nullify marriages that are currently legal and were contracted under the existing law at the time?

[bibiche]

Seems very complicated. Then, you could divorce in one institute, but not the other.

It's not complicated at all. A religious marriage has no legal significance nor should it. Separation of church and state, remember?

[obsidian]

:huh: I feel like I'm completely not following. What I'm seeing proposed is a civil ceremony for all. If anyone wants a religious ceremony, they may have it. How is a religious marriage recognized by the government a right? I understand it's currently the way things work legally, but it seems as though it is a privilege, not a right. What exactly is bad about a required civil ceremony and an optional religious ceremony? 

 

I also find the incredulous reaction at the thought of heterosexual couples not legally marrying terribly ironic, considering the conversation.

 

(I know I'm jumping in late, but I have been following the conversation.)

[KarenNC]

Seems very complicated. Then, you could divorce in one institute, but not the other.

That is currently the case in the US. A legal divorce does not dissolve a marriage in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, which requires its own religious procedures to free someone to remarry.

[Scrub Jay]

Seems very complicated. Then, you could divorce in one institute, but not the other.

 

But why?  Being divorced in the eyes of the law is completely different than however your religious institution handles it anyway.

[Guest]

They want the automatic and freely available legal protections and benefits that come with a legally recognized marriage, just as heterosexual couples do when they seek a legally recognized marriage. The big difference is that they don't have the option to make that choice in many states. Assuming (and it would be a huge assumption) that a separation between religious and civil marriage happened tomorrow, why would you assume that it would be retroactive and nullify marriages that are currently legal and were contracted under the existing law at the time?

I didn't mean that it would be retroactive and nullify current marriages. I see how it sounded that way though. I just meant it's a step backwards for a Christian.

[Audrey]

Like Marbel just asked... why anyone want to have two ceremonies?  This is just undermining the church entirely.  People married in a church aren't really married unless they go the civil route.  How is this not stripping rights from Christians?  The right to marry in the church would be stripped if it's not legally binding.  Do those of you in favor of this really not see how wrong this is?

 

 

Well, I will say that I agree with you somewhat here.  Pastors are not just ordained by their churches to perform religious marriages.  They also have to be certified by their province (in the US case, their state) to be able to administer the legal document that is the certificate of marriage.  That is why you will hear, at a religious wedding, for example, "by the power invested in my by God and the province of Ontario, I now proclaim you man and wife."  In essence, you are getting two services in one -- your religious ceremony of marriage, and your civil/legal certification of your marriage.

 

I see nothing wrong with the state certifying clergy to ALSO administer the legal certificate of marriage.  Only their church can certify them to administer the religious marriage, though, and that is the way it should be.

 

FWIW, I will also say that I do not have a problem with churches who refuse to marry people who are not members of their congregations.  If they say, "we only conduct marriage services for our own congregation members," they are then exercising what I think is their religious right.  There are many Catholic priests, for example, who will not marry a couple where one or both of the couple is not a member of The Church.  Fine. As long as that standard is applied consistently, I do not have a problem with that.   What I do have a problem with is when a church will marry anyone -- members and non-members alike -- but then selectively refuse to marry certain couples. That is discrimination plain and simple.  IMO, if a church is going to open up their marriage services to ANY non-members then they should be expected to be held to the same non-discriminatory practices that the solely legal civil courts adhere to, as well.

[PeacefulChaos]

Sigh.  

 

I have to admit, the last couple pages of the thread I can't help but think, 'Why does it always devolve to the Christians vs. gay marriage debate?'  

 

Sigh.  I know, I don't have to click on it.  But I keep coming back hoping to find some more interesting discussion...

[obsidian]

But having a religious marriage recognized by the state is a privilege, not a legal right, no? Actually, I think there is an argument to be made that recognizing religious marriages is unconstitutional (separation of church and state).