KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[poppy]

My church supports SSM. My minister performs marriages for same sex couples. And has for many years. She is an agent of the state just like any other minister. Changing marriage for everyone isn't at all necessary, and I think making a big push for that now is something I think you will only see happening in churches that refuse to marry same sex couples. It is a move of rejection , not inclusion.

[SKL]

FTR I am neutral on whether a church wedding is also a legal wedding.  It is a small convenience available to only some people.  Not worth fighting about IMO.

[SKL]

My church supports SSM. My minister performs marriages for same sex couples. And has for many years. She is an agent of the state just like any other minister. Changing marriage for everyone isn't at all necessary, and I think making a big push for that now is something I think you will only see happening in churches that refuse to marry same sex couples. It is a move of rejection , not inclusion.

 

Is your beef that many churches won't perform SSM?

[Pam in CT]

My church supports SSM. My minister performs marriages for same sex couples. And has for many years. She is an agent of the state just like any other minister. Changing marriage for everyone isn't at all necessary, and I think making a big push for that now is something I think you will only see happening in churches that refuse to marry same sex couples. It is a move of rejection , not inclusion.

 

Ah.  I see (I think).

 

In the specific case of the particular church that FaithManor referenced, perhaps it is a move of rejection, not inclusion.  Perhaps the objective of that particular church is indeed to draw a line: no matter how the civil law concerning marriage changes, within this church we will only sanctify the marriages that meet our religious standards.  And just to be very-very sure that their religious line is never breached, they are opting out of the civil side entirely.

 

I was thinking of the issue from the macro/public policy side.  From that vantage point, I see real advantages to going to a model of clearer separation of civil vs religious marriage, more along the lines of how many other countries manage to accomplish it.

 

 

 

 

(and FWIW, one of the named couples in the CT SSM suit are fellow congregants of ours, and once SSM legislation was passed here, our rabbi conducted their marriage with great joy and pomp and celebration.  But there are other strands within Judaism that will not ever accept SSM.  And IMO that's OK too.  That's what separation of church and state means....)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA breached, not broached...

[poppy]

Is your beef that many churches won't perform SSM?

 

Not at all. My beef is the idea that they think this new ruling means that the whole system has to change. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am struggling to believe this church has made the decision after the recent USSC decision as a means of inclusion.  It just seems odd that when same sex couples couldn't get legally married that this church didn't mind being attached to civil marriage, but when civil is opened to all they want to separate themselves from the civil side of the equation.  The fact that they are using phrases like "agent of the state" raises red flags for me as well. The elders could be doing with this with good intentions, but someone may want to advise them that the way they are presenting it puts them in the same camp as those who have been frothing at the mouth over this issue.

[idnib]

I think that this is really, really smart. The church has disengaged from the legal process which constitutionally, I do have to question the blurring of the prohibition against the establishment of a state sponsored religion by allowing clergy to perform the legal end of it anyway, and yet retains it's freedom to religiously marry only those that meet the faith requirements of the denomination or local church eldership. Now there is no conflict of interest, no angst.

 

Just curious...

 

Is there a provision for people who only want a church marriage and not a legal one? That would mean the church did not have to act as an agent of the state, but also the couple who didn't want a state-sanctioned marriage wouldn't be forced to get one. Some people have principles against any state involvement for the church and themselves as well.

[idnib]

So I guess rather than returning to work today, Davis is returning Monday.

[Valley Girl]

Not at all. My beef is the idea that they think this new ruling means that the whole system has to change. 

Perhaps for that church or others which may follow its lead, the "whole system" has changed as a result of the SCOTUS decision. Perhaps they embrace SSM but don't like the level of conflict that has arisen. I'm not interested in debating that argument one way or the other.

 

Unless churches are somehow required to handle the legal side of things with regard to marriage (and I don't believe they are), then this church is within its rights to decline to be an agent of the state. Their doing so does not deny legal marriage to anyone who is allowed under the law. Their doing so does not deny a religious ceremony to anyone who is allowed under the rules of their church. If the members of that particular church find this new system burdensome, they're free to attend elsewhere or petition the leadership to reverse its decision. I would think this approach would be applauded especially since the European way of handling marriage has been held up as a positive example in other threads on this topic. (I'm not saying you gave it as an example, Poppy, just that it's been mentioned often in discussions.)

 

Many posters have emphasized the importance of separation of church and state with regard to marriage as well as the need for freedom all around. This church is exercising its freedom and doing so in a way which does not harm or limit anyone. (It's also a contrast to the issue of the Kentucky clerk. Here, the church opted to "quit." Isn't that what most people were saying should happen in the clerk's case?)

 

ETA: Before someone calls me on it, I'm well aware the two cases are different. My only point in comparing them is both were acting as agents of the state.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You are correct - churches are in no way obligated to handle the legal side marriage. Even when involved with the legal side, the involvement is minimal as a church can only participate on the legal side if the couple has a valid marriage license.

 

I would understand churches taking this stand a bit more of churches could actually issue marriage licenses.

[SKL]

Well, there *is* a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.  What is wrong with acknowledging that?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is nothing wrong with it, but churches taking this stance are simply making their members take an extra step when it isn't needed.

[poppy]

Well, there *is* a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.  What is wrong with acknowledging that?

 

There's nothing wrong with it, it's fine. I'm not saying they don't have the right too. But I personally see it as a reaction to gay marriage legalization that is kind of.... thumbing their noses, I guess?  Remember, Kim Davis didn't just refused to issues licenses to gay couples, she refused to issue licenses to ANYONE, and then claimed it wasn't discrimination.  No one believed that for a second.

 

Now, if a church organization as a whole- say, Episcopalians - lobbied to separating legal and civil marriage, I think that's just fine.  It's a legitimate policy option to consider.  But an individual church doing it as a reaction to this specific ruling reads to me a little differently.  Like making sure the doors are double-locked against the gay couples. (When that first lock was already doing its just just fine.)

 

[Pawz4me]

There is nothing wrong with it, but churches taking this stance are simply making their members take an extra step when it isn't needed.

 

And it's possible that the LGBT population will get some amount of blame for that.  These two issues are the main problems I have with individual churches making this decision.

[SKL]

There's nothing wrong with it, it's fine. I'm not saying they don't have the right too. But I personally see it as a reaction to gay marriage legalization that is kind of.... thumbing their noses, I guess?  Remember, Kim Davis didn't just refused to issues licenses to gay couples, she refused to issue licenses to ANYONE, and then claimed it wasn't discrimination.  No one believed that for a second.

 

Now, if a church organization as a whole- say, Episcopalians - lobbied to separating legal and civil marriage, I think that's just fine.  It's a legitimate policy option to consider.  But an individual church doing it as a reaction to this specific ruling reads to me a little differently.  Like making sure the doors are double-locked against the gay couples. (When that first lock was already doing its just just fine.)

 

 

How is it a double-lock now that gay marriage is legal?

 

[kimberlapoderosa]

In Mexico the civil ceremony is completely separate from the religious, and the only one that counts (as far the state is concerned) is the civil.    Often times couples will marry in the civil sense and save money for a religious ceremony.  They are not bothered by this at all.  

[Ravin]

Just curious...

 

Is there a provision for people who only want a church marriage and not a legal one? That would mean the church did not have to act as an agent of the state, but also the couple who didn't want a state-sanctioned marriage wouldn't be forced to get one. Some people have principles against any state involvement for the church and themselves as well.

Sure. This is what fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy do for the plural marriages. And same-sex couples in Pagan circles have been doing this for decades.

[idnib]

Sure. This is what fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy do for the plural marriages. And same-sex couples in Pagan circles have been doing this for decades.

 

Sorry, I meant specifically in FaithManor's church's new policy.

 

If her church doesn't want to be an agent of the state and is asking couples to get legally married before having their ceremony, are they doing anything for couples who don't want to be legally married at all? Will they do a solely religious wedding in which they are also not agents of the state?

 

I should have been more clear.

[poppy]

How is it a double-lock now that gay marriage is legal?

 

The whole thing was presented as limiting their liability due to a perception that they might some day be pressured to perform gay marriages.  Which is not remotely a realistic fear. Churches have complete discretion thanks to the Constitution.  They are not forced to perform marriage ceremonies for any reason..... orientation, race, religious belief, disability, ethnicity, citizenship, doesn't matter. Churches can refused to marry you if you are divorced, if you have lived with your spouse-to-be, if your pledge isn't up to date.  In other words, it's a lock against something that was already very well protected.

 

Unless there is some other way to read it.  It was described originally as:

Well, a local church yesterday announced a decision that due to the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues in the US, and not wanting to be engaged in the political process over such issues, their clergy will no longer officiate over the legal proceedings. Any couple who wants to have a marriage blessing ceremony - a religious marriage - can do so if they meet the faith based requirements set forth by the eldership, but couples will first need to deal with their marriage license and whatever must be done to satisfy the state, ie. go before the magistrate or justice of the peace and do what must be done to be legally married. After that, they can present themselves for a religious ceremony if they meet the conditions.

 

Is there another interpretation for "the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues"?  In the past 50 years, not a whole lot has changed. Interracial marriage was not longer banned, martial rape was made a crime in all 50 states, multiple marriages (2nd or 3rd marriages) are far more common, gay marriage is no longer banned.    I am assuming they are referring to gay marriage as the 'complication'.

[SKL]

The whole thing was presented as limiting their liability due to a perception that they might some day be pressured to perform gay marriages.  Which is not remotely a realistic fear. Churches have complete discretion thanks to the Constitution.  They are not forced to perform marriage ceremonies for any reason..... orientation, race, religious belief, disability, ethnicity, citizenship, doesn't matter. Churches can refused to marry you if you are divorced, if you have lived with your spouse-to-be, if your pledge isn't up to date.  In other words, it's a lock against something that was already very well protected.

 

Unless there is some other way to read it.  It was described originally as:

Well, a local church yesterday announced a decision that due to the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues in the US, and not wanting to be engaged in the political process over such issues, their clergy will no longer officiate over the legal proceedings. Any couple who wants to have a marriage blessing ceremony - a religious marriage - can do so if they meet the faith based requirements set forth by the eldership, but couples will first need to deal with their marriage license and whatever must be done to satisfy the state, ie. go before the magistrate or justice of the peace and do what must be done to be legally married. After that, they can present themselves for a religious ceremony if they meet the conditions.

 

Is there another interpretation for "the ever increasing complexity of marriage issues"?  In the past 50 years, not a whole lot has changed. Interracial marriage was not longer banned, martial rape was made a crime in all 50 states, multiple marriages (2nd or 3rd marriages) are far more common, gay marriage is no longer banned.    I am assuming they are referring to gay marriage as the 'complication'.

 

Since you feel it is utterly ridiculous for a church to even think they might have to perform SSM, maybe give churches the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of the same analysis as you.  Either you are wrong or most churches will agree with you.

 

The provision of a legal marriage to some legally eligible people and not other legally eligible people does make the matter more complex.  Previously it was straightforward-SS couple were simply not legally eligible.  There was no need for the church to debate whether or not to perform SSM or how to word its reasoning.

 

As for the quote, I don't know for sure what they were thinking, and besides, a "quote" in the media rarely accurately represents what was actually said by the person "quoted."

 

 

[poppy]

Since you feel it is utterly ridiculous for a church to even think they might have to perform SSM, maybe give churches the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of the same analysis as you.  Either you are wrong or most churches will agree with you.

 

The provision of a legal marriage to some legally eligible people and not other legally eligible people does make the matter more complex.  Previously it was straightforward-SS couple were simply not legally eligible.  There was no need for the church to debate whether or not to perform SSM or how to word its reasoning.

 

As for the quote, I don't know for sure what they were thinking, and besides, a "quote" in the media rarely accurately represents what was actually said by the person "quoted."

 

 

 

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was quoting FaithManor.

 

I don't think the church actually believes it will be forced to do anything. I believe it is signaling its disapproval and using the language of fearmongering to do so. I could be wrong, and they are actually in fear, and cutting off ALL marriages based on that fear. Either way it is not .........  well, it's not very Christian, from a WWJD perspective.  IMO.

 

I live in a state where gay marriage has been legal for a long time.  Legalized 2004.  There are a whole lot of churches here that will absolutely not perform a gay wedding.  Nearly half of residents in the state are Catholic (a little over 45%).  It has never been an issue. So that is the perspective I'm coming from.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think legally separating civil marriage from religious marriage would go a long way to clear up confusion I think many people still have about marriage. I'm still surprised by how many people don't clearly differentiate between the two. It sounds to me like many other countries are able to maintain the clear distinction and by following their examples we could alleviate fears some people have that government could interfere in religious marriage.  Very clearly defining the government role to a legal document between two consenting, unmarried adults that deals with contract law is the way to go.  Everybody wins.  Religious people keep government out of the religious organization's criteria for marriage and everyone's civil rights are equally protected by the government.

 

To answer the most likely questions, I think polygamy is a legal nightmare that would undo a century of progress creating equality in marriage, so that's why I specify two adults rather than 3+. Of course, any previous marriage license signed by clergy would have to be recognized as a civil marriage, but from this point on we could separate the two and still protect everyone's rights on all sides of the gay marriage issue.

[TranquilMind]

You're grieving people getting access to equal rights under the law.

 

 

I have no sympathy for your grief, and can't understand why your god, if he's as worked up over this as you make it sound, hasn't stopped the tide turning in the xian community. It appears as if praying to him for guidance has no effect whatsoever. 

You are expressing your condescension yet again. 

 

Really, give it up.

 

No one was ever denied any rights, as you well know.   There was simply a redefinition of a age-old construct to mean something new.

It is the CHRISTIAN community. C H R I S T I A N. 

 

If you think what is going on is not complete to be expected, you must never have actually read your Bible in your Catholic days.   

 

Really, you aren't fooling anyone with that "I can't type that many letters and need to use a shortcut for "Christian"" BS. 

[TranquilMind]

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was quoting FaithManor.

 

I don't think the church actually believes it will be forced to do anything. I believe it is signaling its disapproval and using the language of fearmongering to do so. I could be wrong, and they are actually in fear, and cutting off ALL marriages based on that fear. Either way it is not .........  well, it's not very Christian, from a WWJD perspective.  IMO.

 

I live in a state where gay marriage has been legal for a long time.  Legalized 2004.  There are a whole lot of churches here that will absolutely not perform a gay wedding.  Nearly half of residents in the state are Catholic (a little over 45%).  It has never been an issue. So that is the perspective I'm coming from.

For now.

 

If you honestly believe that won't change in less than, say,  25 years, I have a bridge to sell you.    There will simply be an end-run around the First Amendment, by classifying refusal as a "hate crime", I would guess, based on the trajectory.  

[Pam in CT]

I think legally separating civil marriage from religious marriage would go a long way to clear up confusion I think many people still have about marriage. I'm still surprised by how many people don't clearly differentiate between the two. It sounds to me like many other countries are able to maintain the clear distinction and by following their examples we could alleviate fears some people have that government could interfere in religious marriage.  Very clearly defining the government role to a legal document between two consenting, unmarried adults that deals with contract law is the way to go.  Everybody wins.  Religious people keep government out of the religious organization's criteria for marriage and everyone's civil rights are equally protected by the government.

 

...

 

:iagree:

 

And if we did move to a clearer split between the secular legal rights/responsibilities of civil marriage, and the sacramental/ritual/beliefs of religious marriage, some faith communities (my own included)  would welcome SSM and others would not.  

 

Which would seem to ensure civil rights for all, and also religious freedom for all.  Right now we have a system that blurs the boundaries.

[poppy]

For now.

 

If you honestly believe that won't change in less than, say,  25 years, I have a bridge to sell you.    There will simply be an end-run around the First Amendment, by classifying refusal as a "hate crime", I would guess, based on the trajectory.  

 

Tell that to all those Catholic nuns who dearly wish to be allowed to be priests.  

[poppy]

:iagree:

 

And if we did move to a clearer split between the secular legal rights/responsibilities of civil marriage, and the sacramental/ritual/beliefs of religious marriage, some faith communities (my own included)  would welcome SSM and others would not.  

 

Which would seem to ensure civil rights for all, and also religious freedom for all.  Right now we have a system that blurs the boundaries.

 

I don't think so.  Anyone can get a civil marriage.  Anyone who wants to get their civil marriage a church can (with the church's consent).  Why take away that option?

 

I'm not totally opposed to the idea, I think it could work, but I don't think it's necessary.

[albeto.]

You are expressing your condescension yet again. 

 

Really, give it up.

 

Why? Why should I be silent when my loved ones, when my neighbors, my community, are publicly identified as so awful that oppression is the only thing that keeps people from grieving? I find that to be a particularly awful thing to say out loud, and certainly in company where these supposedly egregious people and their loved ones gather. 

 

ETA: I don't mean to sound condescending. I would change my post but it's been up for days and has been quoted. I'll try better next time to articulate my thoughts more kindly if that helps. 

 

No one was ever denied any rights, as you well know.   There was simply a redefinition of a age-old construct to mean something new.

It is the CHRISTIAN community. C H R I S T I A N. 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The right to marry the person of one's choice most certainly was denied. Demonstrably so. 

 

I get it that you don't agree with the legal findings, but arguing what the definition *should* be is moot. The definition stands, and is binding in law nationwide now. 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

For now.

 

If you honestly believe that won't change in less than, say,  25 years, I have a bridge to sell you.    There will simply be an end-run around the First Amendment, by classifying refusal as a "hate crime", I would guess, based on the trajectory.  

No, it will be withdrawal of the tax exempt status that will start it.  

 

Some on this board have already advocated for that.  It's obviously going to be a point of pressure.

[albeto.]

No, it will be withdrawal of the tax exempt status that will start it.  

 

Some on this board have already advocated for that.  It's obviously going to be a point of pressure.

 

Do you see that happening? If so, how? What steps do you think it would take? 

[Carol in Cal.]

Do you see that happening? If so, how? What steps do you think it would take? 

You tell me, Albeto.  You're one of the ones who thought it was a good idea in one of the earlier threads.  How should it be done?

[albeto.]

You tell me, Albeto.  You're one of the ones who thought it was a good idea in one of the earlier threads.  How should it be done?

 

 I would like to see it. Very much so. When someone with more knowledge than me says it's not likely for practical reasons, I figure it's not likely. You think it will happen. I wonder what makes you think that. 

[Amira]

Lots of countries don't recognize any kind of religious ceremony.  I personally think that's a pretty good system.  I'm a Mormon and our religious marriages are also legal marriages in the US, but in most countries they aren't.  It's really not a big deal.  You get married civilly first and then go to the temple afterward.

 

It's actually quite interesting to see the interplay between civil and religious marriages in some places.  In Kyrgyzstan it can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to get married civilly and religious marriages are recognized by the community even if they aren't recognized legally.  It's not uncommon for people to wait until it's more convenient to get the civil marriage done and they aren't legally married for a while. In many Middle Eastern countries there are only religious marriages. For Mormons, you cannot be married religiously until you have a civil wedding, if the religious marriage isn't legal in your country.

 

In the end, I am not any more worried about a church being required to perform marriages for same-sex couples than I am worried that a church would be required to perform a marriage for someone who follows a different religion  Both groups are protected classes (sexual orientation/gender and religion) and neither can expect to be married by everyone with the legal right to perform marriages.

 

It seems simplest to me, as other posters have said, to have civil marriages that outline and recognize your legal rights and responsibilities, and then, if you so choose, you can also be married religiously to signal your acceptance of religious rights and responsibilities associated with the marriage.

[Ipsey]

Lots of countries don't recognize any kind of religious ceremony.  I personally think that's a pretty good system.  I'm a Mormon and our religious marriages are also legal marriages in the US, but in most countries they aren't.  It's really not a big deal.  You get married civilly first and then go to the temple afterward.

 

It's actually quite interesting to see the interplay between civil and religious marriages in some places.  In Kyrgyzstan it can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to get married civilly and religious marriages are recognized by the community even if they aren't recognized legally.  It's not uncommon for people to wait until it's more convenient to get the civil marriage done and they aren't legally married for a while. In many Middle Eastern countries there are only religious marriages. For Mormons, you cannot be married religiously until you have a civil wedding, if the religious marriage isn't legal in your country.

 

In the end, I am not any more worried about a church being required to perform marriages for same-sex couples than I am worried that a church would be required to perform a marriage for someone who follows a different religion  Both groups are protected classes (sexual orientation/gender and religion) and neither can expect to be married by everyone with the legal right to perform marriages.

 

It seems simplest to me, as other posters have said, to have civil marriages that outline and recognize your legal rights and responsibilities, and then, if you so choose, you can also be married religiously to signal your acceptance of religious rights and responsibilities associated with the marriage.

 

When I lived in France and first learned about this--when I was a very serious Evangelical Christian--I thought it was a brilliant idea! Even now as a non-believer I think it's a great way to go.

[justasque]

 

....

 

The provision of a legal marriage to some legally eligible people and not other legally eligible people does make the matter more complex.  Previously it was straightforward-SS couple were simply not legally eligible.  There was no need for the church to debate whether or not to perform SSM or how to word its reasoning.

...

 

Churches have always had the right to decide who to marry and who not to, even amongst those who were legally eligible.  See, for example, Mrs. Davis' second, third, and fourth marriages, none of which would likely qualify for a church wedding had she been Catholic (or any number of other Christian denominations). 

 

 

For now.

 

If you honestly believe that won't change in less than, say,  25 years, I have a bridge to sell you.    There will simply be an end-run around the First Amendment, by classifying refusal as a "hate crime", I would guess, based on the trajectory.

 

I do think there will be change in 25 years, but not because of government pressure.  Rather, I think the change will come through families within faith communities who have gay/lesbian/trans/queer/intersex loved ones, and from GLTQI people themselves who grow up in congregations themselves.  Kids today are growing up with out queer peers, and they are going to have to think long and hard on how these peers should be treated within their faith communities, and whether the status quo is appropriate and right.  Already, we've seen the conversation get much more nuanced - we didn't start at "love the sinner, hate the sin" and distinctions between attraction and actions.  There's been significant change in how the issue is addressed even in those faiths that feel strongly that homosexual relationships are sinful and should not be eligible for matrimony.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

 

 

I do think there will be change in 25 years, but not because of government pressure.  Rather, I think the change will come through families within faith communities who have gay/lesbian/trans/queer/intersex loved ones, and from GLTQI people themselves who grow up in congregations themselves.  Kids today are growing up with out queer peers, and they are going to have to think long and hard on how these peers should be treated within their faith communities, and whether the status quo is appropriate and right.  Already, we've seen the conversation get much more nuanced - we didn't start at "love the sinner, hate the sin" and distinctions between attraction and actions.  There's been significant change in how the issue is addressed even in those faiths that feel strongly that homosexual relationships are sinful and should not be eligible for matrimony.

So in other words, you agree it will happen.

All we need to do is redefine terms and redefine biblical truth.

 

We are well on our way. 

[albeto.]

So in other words, you agree it will happen.

All we need to do is redefine terms and redefine biblical truth.

 

We are well on our way. 

 

Keep your biblical truth. No one is taking that away from you.

[bibiche]

So in other words, you agree it will happen.

All we need to do is redefine terms and redefine biblical truth.

 

We are well on our way. 

 

I agree and it is very exciting!  Hopefully it won't take 25 years though. :)

[Joker]

So in other words, you agree it will happen.

All we need to do is redefine terms and redefine biblical truth.

 

We are well on our way. 

 

 

We are both Christians but disagree on what is right in this instance. There are many Christians who feel as you do and many who feel the same as me. So, it being redefined may not be such a horrible thing because maybe it will be redefined to what is right. Your biblical truth isn't the same as all other Christians.

[TranquilMind]

I agree and it is very exciting!  Hopefully it won't take 25 years though. :)

Well, I've read the end of the Book.

It won't be a surprise. 

[justasque]

Multi-quoting here for context of the discussion thread.
 

...
 
I live in a state where gay marriage has been legal for a long time.  Legalized 2004.  There are a whole lot of churches here that will absolutely not perform a gay wedding.  Nearly half of residents in the state are Catholic (a little over 45%).  It has never been an issue. So that is the perspective I'm coming from.

 
 

For now.
 
If you honestly believe that won't change in less than, say,  25 years, I have a bridge to sell you.    There will simply be an end-run around the First Amendment, by classifying refusal as a "hate crime", I would guess, based on the trajectory.

 
 

Churches have always had the right to decide who to marry and who not to, even amongst those who were legally eligible.  See, for example, Mrs. Davis' second, third, and fourth marriages, none of which would likely qualify for a church wedding had she been Catholic (or any number of other Christian denominations). 
 
I do think there will be change in 25 years, but not because of government pressure.  Rather, I think the change will come through families within faith communities who have gay/lesbian/trans/queer/intersex loved ones, and from GLTQI people themselves who grow up in congregations themselves.  Kids today are growing up with out queer peers, and they are going to have to think long and hard on how these peers should be treated within their faith communities, and whether the status quo is appropriate and right.  Already, we've seen the conversation get much more nuanced - we didn't start at "love the sinner, hate the sin" and distinctions between attraction and actions.  There's been significant change in how the issue is addressed even in those faiths that feel strongly that homosexual relationships are sinful and should not be eligible for matrimony.

So in other words, you agree it will happen.
All we need to do is redefine terms and redefine biblical truth.

We are well on our way.

I agree that in twenty-five years, more churches are likely to choose to perform weddings without regard to the gender of the participants.

 

I do NOT agree that it will come because of an "end-run around the First Amendment", or through government "classifying refusal as a "hate crime"", or any other government intervention. I do not think that government will force a worship community to marry a couple the community doesn't want to marry.  Government simply doesn't belong in that process.

 

I do NOT believe it will come through "redefining" Biblical Truth.  Rather, I think it will come through seeking Biblical Truth.  

 

I believe it will come through faith communities asking the question "how should they then live" regarding the LGBTQI folks in their families, congregations, and communities (as well as the classic WWJD), and seeking answers through prayer, careful attention to witness, and thoughtful study of the Bible.

[DragonFaerie]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/fashion/weddings/a-marriage-at-sea-get-me-rewrite.html?referrer=&_r=0

 

Interesting.  On a recent episode of Deadliest Catch, one of the captains officiated the wedding of one of his crew members on board the boat.

[Ravin]

For now.

 

If you honestly believe that won't change in less than, say, 25 years, I have a bridge to sell you. There will simply be an end-run around the First Amendment, by classifying refusal as a "hate crime", I would guess, based on the trajectory.

This is a slippery slope argument. A fallacy. No one is interested in making an end-run around the 1st Amendment.

[Ravin]

Interesting. On a recent episode of Deadliest Catch, one of the captains officiated the wedding of one of his crew members on board the boat.

In that case, he must have been a registered/authorized officiant under State law. That's easy to do in most states. And does not come from any inherent authority as a ship's captain.

[Valley Girl]

And it's possible that the LGBT population will get some amount of blame for that.  These two issues are the main problems I have with individual churches making this decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not all churches belong to a denomination which has an overall governing body. I don't know what denomination the church FaithManor referenced is. If it's not part of a larger body, ANY decision the leadership makes would be an individual one then. There may even be denominations that permit a certain degree of autonomy. The thing is, people who support SSM got what they wanted with the SCOTUS decision. Now other people/organizations get to decide how they wish to respond in order to be true to their own beliefs. As long as they are within their rights and their response is within the bounds of law, there's really no grounds for anyone to complain--not that you were. It's the old freedom for all thing.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not all churches belong to a denomination which has an overall governing body. I don't know what denomination the church FaithManor referenced is. If it's not part of a larger body, ANY decision the leadership makes would be an individual one then. There may even be denominations that permit a certain degree of autonomy. The thing is, people who support SSM got what they wanted with the SCOTUS decision. Now other people/organizations get to decide how they wish to respond in order to be true to their own beliefs. As long as they are within their rights and their response is within the bounds of law, there's really no grounds for anyone to complain--not that you were. It's the old freedom for all thing.

Has anyone said they can't? I don't believe so.

 

I do think that any church that feels they need to do this to "protect" themselves is showing a frightening level of ignorance about the the 1st Amendment and our legal system.

[Valley Girl]

Has anyone said they can't? I don't believe so.

 

I do think that any church that feels they need to do this to "protect" themselves is showing a frightening level of ignorance about the the 1st Amendment and our legal system.

ETA: My apologies, ChocolateReign. I read your post too quickly and just realized that my response didn't match your comment.

 

I didn't say anyone said the churches can't. I'm just discussing and sharing my thoughts--same as everyone else.

[mamajag]

Well your question was, is gay sexuality abhorrent. I will answer, of course it isn't. Better?

To certain faiths, it just is. I don't go around being mean to gay people and frankly having identified as bi for most of my life I have a bunch of friends in the LGBT community. It was awkward at first when I converted. There was a lot of hand wringing and hashing things out. So yes, while my faith says it is sinful and my Lord hates it I don't hate gay people any more than I hate liars, adulterers, and gamblers. I figure if the LGBT people who actually know me don't think I'm a bigot I'm in pretty good shape...as opposed to taking seriously people who spend all their time on the internet condemning everyone who hasn't yet turned away from God and embraced relativistic apathy.

 

In short, hate is a specific thing, and not celebrating every choice a person makes is not hate. If it were, mothers who partake in debates about parenting choices are hate groups. Please stop watering down the word.

[poppy]

To certain faiths, it just is. I don't go around being mean to gay people and frankly having identified as bi for most of my life I have a bunch of friends in the LGBT community. It was awkward at first when I converted. There was a lot of hand wringing and hashing things out. So yes, while my faith says it is sinful and my Lord hates it I don't hate gay people any more than I hate liars, adulterers, and gamblers. I figure if the LGBT people who actually know me don't think I'm a bigot I'm in pretty good shape...as opposed to taking seriously people who spend all their time on the internet condemning everyone who hasn't yet turned away from God and embraced relativistic apathy.

 

In short, hate is a specific thing, and not celebrating every choice a person makes is not hate. If it were, mothers who partake in debates about parenting choices are hate groups. Please stop watering down the word.

 

Here is the context for my comment:

1. I said "What if you applied for a license and were told no because morally your wedding was forbidden. Would you see that more as a slap or a brief inconvenience?"

 

2. The reply was "Well, I don't know.  What is the context?  Am I trying to force someone to give me a license despite his own conscience and all historical context?  I can't unlaterally decide that what I want is the way it should be and I must be accommodated if it has always been the opposite and the prevailing culture and morality affirms the opposite of what I want.

 

3. I replied "Many , many people around the world hold the traditional belief that any female sexual pleasure is abhorrant. FGM is the result. I disagree with that , and with you."

 

4. The reply was "I love how no one will address anything I ask or state but merely keeps adding another "But what about THIS thing we aren't even talking about?"  as if I am proposing the irrelevant thing. No one is speaking of this at all.   It is not relevant to the discussion at hand which is what IS marriage and why Kim Davis did what she did, right or wrong. "

 

5.Well your question was, is gay sexuality abhorrent. I will answer, of course it isn't. Better?

 

So..... I don't know where your comment about watering down the word "hate" came from.  No hate in the conversation at all.  The question, as I was it,  was: "should a belief be respected because it is traditional."

[Pawz4me]

New billboard erected in Kim Davis' town