It’s an argument so incoherent I can barely make sense of it, but her main point seems to be that if the state recognizes gay marriages, this will magically make it legal to sue churches for not recognizing them. Never mind that this never happened with interracial marriage: which is infinately more accepted than gay marriage will be within our lifetimes. Never mind that none of the things she warns will come to pass are supported under any law I’ve ever heard of.
And who are the “legal scholars” who are troubled by this possibility? There are clearly ones who worry that gay marriage will open up some strange new questions for legal ethics and civil law. But I’ve never heard of a single one that claimed churches could be sued for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. Heck, churches can’t be sued or lose their tax-exempt status today for preaching that all non-whites will burn in hell for goodness sakes.
If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to sue the local pastor for not giving his blessing to my girlfriend’s abortion. Then maybe I’ll sue a few synagogues for damages, since their teachings are hurtful to my uncle’s pork pie factory profits, which I stand to inherit. Because religious institutions must necessarily be forced to sanction everything that is allowable under secular law.
Right.
Besides that, am I reading this right?
Did she really speculate that increased support for the legal recognition of homosexual relationships might be because of the terrorists?
Yet another stupid - she says if gay marriages become legal we can all sue churches who say homosexuality is a sin for hate crimes. Since hate crimes against gays are already illegal in many places, I wonder why the suits aren’t flying. I also wonder why no one has thought to sue the Catholic church for not marrying divorced people?
Notice that the Hayes book, the one Jon Stewart trashed, is being advertised on this site?
That reminds me of my favorite scene from Joshua. The Pope peers at him after his recounting of an event from the Holy See’s childhood and says raspily, “Who are you.” Joshua holds his stare and with twinkling eyes says, “Peter, don’t you know me?” Oh, lordy, that’s just so beautiful.
At first I wanted to say no. But then I remembered that both the Catholic Church and Bob Jones University have been sued for discrimination against women. The Catholic Church won its case, but Bob Jones lost its case and its tax exempt status was revoked. So yes, someone could sue a church for discrimination against homosexuals.
Of course, they can do that now, so I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage would fundamentally change anything.
Maybe it’s just me, but if gay marriage passes and some couple sues their church for not letting them get married, well, I’d say “Good For You!”. I guess I’m ok when someone’s suing a bigoted institution for their, well…, bigotry.
Yeah. Stephen Harper trotted out that tired old saw during the campaign and pretended to score a hit by demanding whether the NDP would the Notwithstanding Clause if churches had their rights not to marry same-sex couples taken away.
Well, 1) that would be against the charter anyway, 2) no existing law forces any church to marry anybody who can legally marry, 3) the text of the draft bill submitted by the NDP specifically exempts churches from having to do it if they don’t want, and 4) I didn’t want to get married in your stinky ol’ church anyway, so nyahhhh.
Why should my right to be married in the eyes of the government trump the right of a group of religious people to their freedom of religion?
I wouldn’t want the government dictating practices or doctrines to the church I attend, and I don’t want the government to do that to other churches, even if the result of such dictation is, ostensibly, beneficial to me.
People have a right to believe stupid things, even evil things. They have a right to form churches that preach those stupid, evil things. So long as they don’t try to enact that stupidity or evilness into law, they’re not treading on me, and I see nothing good that can come from treading upon them.
I am not harmed if the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize my marriage. The Catholic Church doesn’t administer Social Security, it does not decide custody issues regarding children, it doesn’t determine my tax rate, it doesn’t determine whether I can see my loved one in the hospital. However, millions of devout Catholics in this country are harmed if their religion is changed to suit my worldview, and that’s not right.
Yes, why should a Church’s doctrine be limited by the laws of government, Spectrum? Let the churches do whatever their beliefs dictate! Whee! Let them smite the wicked! Stone the adulters! Disallow medical treatment to their ill! Yippee! Hurray for ignorance!
In all seriousness, I’m still of the opinion that if a couple wants to sue their religious institution to get married there (gay, straight, divorced, widowed, multi-racial, et al) go ahead. I wouldn’t guarantee a win on their part either though.
Okay, dimbulb, see if you can’t figure out the difference between a religion not recognizing, for its own purposes, a marriage that is not in line with its doctrinal beliefs, and stoning a person to death.
Here’s a hint, one causes harm to another person, the other doesn’t…
See if you can’t figure which is which.
My ability to be married in the eyes of government and God is in no way infringed by the Catholic Church’s refusal to recognize that marriage. However, a Catholic’s right to freedom of religion is infringed if I force his church to recognize a marriage that goes against its teachings. If you can’t see that, you have no concept of liberty.
It would be easy to dismiss Kathleen Parker. The state shouldn’t interfere with the decisions of a church.
But the state of California is making the Catholic Church (actually Catholic Charities) pay for contraceptives in its health plan, in direct conflict with Catholic teachings and in rather direct conflict, apparantly, with the separation of church and state.
How this can be squared with the Constitution I don’t know. But there you go. Maybe there’s hyperbole here, but there’s legitimate concern as well.
I support civil unions, with full equivalency of rights even at the federal level. But they must be civil. Churches must be left alone in this area.
Catholic Charities is not part of the Catholic Church. It is not a religious organization, and does not only employ Catholics. It operates separately from the structure of the Catholic Church, and is therefore no more protected by the SOCAS than a bookstore that specializes in religious works.
If Catholic Charities were owned and operated by the Catholic Church, then it would be immune from this law. Just as the Church itself is – the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles, for instance, is not required to cover birth control costs for its staff members. Catholic Charities, however, is trying to have it both ways: be “private” when it suits them, and claim “religious organization” when it suits them. They can’t be both.