# Kathleen Parker warns: gay marriage means the end of SoCas **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 1, 2004, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007 "2004-07-01T04:24:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/21 "2004-07-01T17:52:42Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > I think she’s saying that, with the war in Iraq and the beheadings and all, gay marriage is less of a priority for people. Well, that’s the way it’s phrased, but think of it in the context of a polling situation. How can beheadings in the news _possibly_ have a measurable impact on how individuals choose to answer _direct questions_ about a totally unrelated topic? What kind of thought process would that require? > [@](#): > > Q) Do you believe that the right to marry should be extended to homosexual couples? > > A) I would have said “no” last year, but in light of the recent beheadings in Iraq, I’ve reevaluated my opinion on the subject of the civil rights for gays. Speculating that horrific (and completely unrelated) acts of violence might explain a shift in public opinion is a pitiful way to skirt the suggestion that such a change might be due to, oh, I don’t know, _the spirited public discourse on the subject itself_. “Oh, people are losing touch with traditional American values because the terrorists have turned everything upside down. We need to reclaim America, or they’ll have won!” :rolleyes: If you want to attack something but find yourself in a weaker moral position than you’d prefer to have, try habitually mentioning it in close context with terrorism. Hey, it’s worked before. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/22 "2004-07-01T18:00:32Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > 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. OK, Cockbite, gee. I don’t know if there’s a difference, nyuk, nyuk. :rolleyes: They’re a couple little things called humor and hyperbole. I’ll direct you to a dictionary so you can get a little enlightenment. (Especially since my second sentence started with the words “in all seriousness”) IMHO, these churches that refuse to marry per the law should have all ability to [marry people](http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/index.shtml) removed until they can be fully compliant with federal and state law or else be open lawsuit. Sorry if I don’t pander to IPUs. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/23 "2004-07-01T18:17:22Z")
If a religion believes that gay relationships are immoral, and that gay people cannot participate in sacramental marriage, how is it not a violation of their freedom of religion to require them to do something which violates their religious tenets lest they lose the ability to fully practice their faith? Allowing a church to say “sorry, we only marry heterosexuals here” does NOT HARM ANYONE. Penalizing churches for refusing to throw away their doctrinal positions on matters sacramental DOES. You appear to have no concept of “freedom of religion.” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/24 "2004-07-01T18:27:04Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > If a religion believes that gay relationships are immoral, and that gay people cannot participate in sacramental marriage, how is it not a violation of their freedom of religion to require them to do something which violates their religious tenets lest they lose the ability to fully practice their faith? > > Allowing a church to say “sorry, we only marry heterosexuals here” does NOT HARM ANYONE. > > Penalizing churches for refusing to throw away their doctrinal positions on matters sacramental DOES. > > You appear to have no concept of “freedom of religion.” _ **Beautiful** _ answer, **Spectrum**. And, lest somebody wave the “civil marriage” flag again, let me point out that, making the presumption of gay marriage having been made legal, the law needs to recognize those churches that **are** willing to solemnize gay marriages: the UFMCC, the UUA, large numbers of Episcopal and Methodist churches, some liberal independent Baptist churches, etc. A law authorizing a religious official, in his religious capacity, to preside over a legal action – which I think is pretty well delimited to marriage anyway – is not a mandate that he do so contrary to his own religious principles. And given the First Amendment it **cannot** be so. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/25 "2004-07-01T18:32:56Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > If a religion believes that gay relationships are immoral, and that gay people cannot participate in sacramental marriage, how is it not a violation of their freedom of religion to require them to do something which violates their religious tenets lest they lose the ability to fully practice their faith? > > Allowing a church to say “sorry, we only marry heterosexuals here” does NOT HARM ANYONE. > > Penalizing churches for refusing to throw away their doctrinal positions on matters sacramental DOES. > > You appear to have no concept of “freedom of religion.” Believe whatever the fuck you want. That’s your freedom of religion. Don’t expect me to condone your beliefs or having you doing illegal or amoral things in the confines of the U.S. though. That’s where the liberties of the wacked-out beliefs stop. You only want to marry people who are straight and snowy-white in your church? Knock yourself out. Just don’t expect the government to recognize your marriage unless it’s been processed through the normal channels as opposed to your bigoted beliefs. I really see the line in the sand drawn there. I don’t really see how it HARMS them not to have their marriages recognized by the government if they’re solely solemnized by the church. Make them go through the secular channels. That’s the same arguement if you’re trying to prove harm. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/26 "2004-07-01T18:36:51Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > 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. Obviously, Catholic Charities disagrees. Their statement quoted below: > [@](#): > > Catholic Charities USA is disappointed by the recent California Supreme Court ruling regarding Catholic Charities, Inc. of Sacramento. We are dismayed by the Court’s intrusion into the rights of a Catholic organization and find it disturbing that a court can define a Catholic Charities agency as not being a religious organization. > > As the social service arm of the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities agencies nationwide answer God’s call to help the least among us by providing help and creating hope to more than seven million people a year. As a Roman Catholic institution that has a deep and abiding belief in the dignity and worth of every human being, we have an obligation to reach out and help the most vulnerable in our society, regardless of religious affiliation. We also have an obligation to engage the broader community both in service and in partnership in helping to lift people out of poverty and address their needs. > > Catholic Charities USA agrees with the California Catholic Conference that this case was never about contraceptives or about insurance. It was about how a Catholic Charities agency, that is an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church, practices its beliefs as a religious organization by providing food, clothing, shelter, and other vital services to people in need. Now, what’s to stop a court, in a similar display of highhandedness, from ordering a church to perform a gay wedding? It’s certainly a fair question, in light of this ruling. And don’t muddy the waters by claiming that Catholic Charities isn’t a church. They certainly are at least a religious organization, and ought to have freedom of worship in any case. ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/27 "2004-07-01T18:40:54Z")
In Catholicism, marriage is a Sacrament. Last time I checked, doing good works was not. The work that Catholic Charities does is entirely seperate from the Sacraments of the church and the analogy does not hold. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/28 "2004-07-01T18:42:09Z")
By only allowing churches that perform gay marriages to perform “real” marriages is, in fact, to attempt to force a doctrinal position on those churches. And that is not just un-Constitutional, that is flat out wrong. Just as wrong as a law that banned ministers from presiding at gay union ceremonies. Because, you see, I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage is a freedom of religion argument – there are religions that recognize gay marriages and bless those unions, and I believe it is un-Constitutional for the state to refuse to accord those blessing rites the same legal weight that they accord a marriage rite between heterosexuals in another church. But your absurd, anti-religious position, turns that argument into an argument AGAINST gay marriage. You are turning gay marriage into a weapon you can use against religions you don’t like, and that is wrong. Because that HARMS people – it harms me, because you’re turning my love into a tool for your bigotry, and I won’t have it. I will not be some pawn you use to assuage a grudge you’ve been nursing against mainstream religion. And again, you refuse to show me where any harm is done. If a church refusing to marry a gay couple is causing harm, then yes, that church should be legally required to do so. But I cannot imagine a situation where you can show that such harm would be done. The Catholic Church will not perform a wedding involving people who have been divorced. Many churches will not perform weddings that involve people from other religious persuasions. I’m sure there are a few backwards churchese out there that won’t marry folks of different races. I assume you would strip all of these churches of their ability to marry people. That’s because you don’t repsect the notions of freedom, dissent and liberty. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/29 "2004-07-01T18:45:02Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > A law authorizing a religious official, in his religious capacity, to preside over a legal action – which I think is pretty well delimited to marriage anyway – is not a mandate that he do so contrary to his own religious principles. And given the First Amendment it **cannot** be so. Therein lies the problem with a government giving a person legal authority when that is strictly in a religious capacity. It blurs the lines and makes this whole situation problematic as we’re not dealing with an issue of gay marriage but of a church’s fucked-up mores. Remove this power from the church and I’ll concede to **Spectrum’s** viewpoint about not allowing the government to dictate church doctrine. Until then, I’ll applaud any and all who sue the churches for their right to a little fuckin’ dignity. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/30 "2004-07-01T18:48:09Z")
As I understand the Catholic Charities problem…Catholic Charities gets funds from the state to provide social services to the general population. They are free to do their good works privately and not have birth control for their employees and not hire anyone who isn’t Catholic, but if they do accept state funds, they are subject to state law regarding such things as insurance and anti discrimination. At least, that was their deal here in Minnesota. I don’t know the specifics of California. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/31 "2004-07-01T18:51:01Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Remove this power from the church and I’ll concede to **Spectrum’s** viewpoint about not allowing the government to dictate church doctrine. Fortunately, the Constitution was written by better people than you. > [@](#): > > Until then, I’ll applaud any and all who sue the churches for their right to a little fuckin’ dignity. Yes, because suing to be married by people who don’t want to marry you, forcing your way into their chapel and besmirching their faith… that’s dignified. Please stop trying to use my civil rights as a weapon for your anti-religion vendetta. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/32 "2004-07-01T18:51:17Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > You only want to marry people who are straight and snowy-white in your church? Knock yourself out. Just don’t expect the government to recognize your marriage unless it’s been processed through the normal channels as opposed to your bigoted beliefs… Erm, are you accusing **spectrum** of being a homophobic religious bigot or am I misinterpreting a lapse into apostrophe? You realize that he’s the one articulating the ideals of tolerance and diversity, right? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/33 "2004-07-01T18:51:19Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > By only allowing churches that perform gay marriages to perform “real” marriages is, in fact, to attempt to force a doctrinal position on those churches. And that is not just un-Constitutional, that is flat out wrong. > > Just as wrong as a law that banned ministers from presiding at gay union ceremonies. Because, you see, I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage is a freedom of religion argument – there are religions that recognize gay marriages and bless those unions, and I believe it is un-Constitutional for the state to refuse to accord those blessing rites the same legal weight that they accord a marriage rite between heterosexuals in another church. But your absurd, anti-religious position, turns that argument into an argument AGAINST gay marriage. > > You are turning gay marriage into a weapon you can use against religions you don’t like, and that is wrong. Because that HARMS people – it harms me, because you’re turning my love into a tool for your bigotry, and I won’t have it. I will not be some pawn you use to assuage a grudge you’ve been nursing against mainstream religion. > > And again, you refuse to show me where any harm is done. If a church refusing to marry a gay couple is causing harm, then yes, that church should be legally required to do so. But I cannot imagine a situation where you can show that such harm would be done. > > The Catholic Church will not perform a wedding involving people who have been divorced. Many churches will not perform weddings that involve people from other religious persuasions. I’m sure there are a few backwards churchese out there that won’t marry folks of different races. I assume you would strip all of these churches of their ability to marry people. > > That’s because you don’t repsect the notions of freedom, dissent and liberty. Would ya PLEASE show me where I’m saying that the church’s refusal to marry ANYONE is causing ANYONE HARM? That’s YOUR arguement, not mine. I don’t have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in that fight. I wouldn’t attend a bigoted church and then expect to get married there. I’m sure there are some ignorant fucks that do and if they wanna sue because they can’t, then GOOD FOR THEM. I don’t **repsect** any belief system that devalues a person. As I’ve said, feel free to believe what you want to, go all-the-fuck-out, **repsect** is a different thing though. An antiquated bullshit story like the bible that’s the foundation and catalyst for this type of demonstrated bigotry doesn’t deserve an ounce of it. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/34 "2004-07-01T18:56:49Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Fortunately, the Constitution was written by better people than you. > . I’m so fucking glad you’re able to delineate and argue a point without ad hominem attacks. FUN! IIRC, the laws were written partially because of the heavy influence the people felt the church had over the government. > [@spectrum](#): > > Yes, because suing to be married by people who don’t want to marry you, forcing your way into their chapel and besmirching their faith… that’s dignified. > > Please stop trying to use my civil rights as a weapon for your anti-religion vendetta. Hey, I’ve never said \*I \* wanted to get married by your chapel. If someone else does, that’s their business. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/35 "2004-07-01T19:00:01Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Erm, are you accusing **spectrum** of being a homophobic religious bigot or am I misinterpreting a lapse into apostrophe? > [@Larry Mudd](#): > > You realize that he’s the one articulating the ideals of tolerance and diversity, right? Sorry, I don’t agree with tolerating bigotry and that’s what I’d define a church that refuses to marry a gay couple as. Diversity isn’t always the best thing. ---
**Author:** ![Achren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/898d66/32.png) [@Achren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achren)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/36 "2004-07-01T19:08:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **stpauler** > _Believe whatever the fuck you want. That’s your freedom of religion. Don’t expect me to condone your beliefs or having you doing illegal or amoral things in the confines of the U.S. though. That’s where the liberties of the wacked-out beliefs stop. You only want to marry people who are straight and snowy-white in your church? Knock yourself out. Just don’t expect the government to recognize your marriage unless it’s been processed through the normal channels as opposed to your bigoted beliefs. I really see the line in the sand drawn there. I don’t really see how it HARMS them not to have their marriages recognized by the government if they’re solely solemnized by the church. Make them go through the secular channels. That’s the same arguement if you’re trying to prove harm._ Actually most religious/Christian/whathave you I know would like to move marriage in that direction, where it’s mainly a civil matter. Those who want to can then have a ceremony in a church, but that’s not what makes them married in the eyes of the state. It sounds good to me. Civil unions for all, and church ceremonies for those that want them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/37 "2004-07-01T19:09:24Z")
**Moto** , you’re conflating apples with oranges on the Catholic Charities thing. I happen to know something about this being that my wife is employed by a religious charity but is not a member of that church. A church, _acting simply as an employer_ is obligated to follow the same standards and policies as any other employer with regard to certain benefits and certain issues of dicscrimination. The ruling in the CC case had nothing to do with dictaing any sort of doctrine or religious practices for the church _as a church_, but only stipulated what was necessary as to how they treated employees, many of whom (and I know this for a fact) are not Catholic. You should also bear in mind that Catholic Charities receives money from Bush’s “faith-Based Initiative.” That is tax-payer money, my friend, and that means CC can only use it in ways which do not endorse a specific religious view. I hope I’m articulatng myself well, my wife is really somewhat of an authority on this since she is a government grant writer for a large religious charity and deals with that faith-based stuff all the time. Anyway, a charitable arm of a church is bound by certain rules that the church itself is not. Trust me on this, the CC ruling is not in any way analogous to the government being able to exercise any control over religious sacraments. It’s only a mandate on how they have to treat the employees at their charities. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/38 "2004-07-01T19:09:28Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > As I understand the Catholic Charities problem…Catholic Charities gets funds from the state to provide social services to the general population. They are free to do their good works privately and not have birth control for their employees and not hire anyone who isn’t Catholic, but if they do accept state funds, they are subject to state law regarding such things as insurance and anti discrimination. > > At least, that was their deal here in Minnesota. I don’t know the specifics of California. Same deal. And Catholic Charities was happy to hire non-Catholics. They just didn’t want to pay for contraception in their medical plan. It disappoints me, first of all, that the law was written so broadly that there wasn’t an exemption for religious organizations. That would have seemed obvious to me. I think, too, the ruling was a tremendous mistake. I don’t think the exclusion of contraceptives was discriminatory toward anybody in any meaningful way. But the harm caused by the ruling may be far worse than the problem it supposedly fixed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/39 "2004-07-01T19:21:50Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Same deal. And Catholic Charities was happy to hire non-Catholics. They just didn’t want to pay for contraception in their medical plan. That’s not a decision they have the right to make if they’re receiving taxpayer money. if they don’t want to follow the rules for receiving those funds then they don’t have to petition for them. If they _are_ going to take taxpayer money, then cannot impose any religious conditions on how it is spent. they cannot discriminate in services or in employment and they cannot impose religious restrictions on employees. That includes withholding benefits for any religious reason. > [@](#): > > It disappoints me, first of all, that the law was written so broadly that there wasn’t an exemption for religious organizations. That would have seemed obvious to me. It’s called the Constitution, dude. There _is_ no way to write a law around it. Taxpayer money cannot be used to promote religion or to discriminate on the basis of religion. That’s the deal religious charities make when they decide to take public money. > [@](#): > > I think, too, the ruling was a tremendous mistake. It was the only ruling possible under the Constitution. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the exclusion of contraceptives was discriminatory toward anybody in any meaningful way. But the harm caused by the ruling may be far worse than the problem it supposedly fixed. You haven’t demonstrated that no harm is caused by the ruling, but withholding any benefit from employees for a purely religious reason is simply not a prerogative that a state-funded charity has. That amounts to an imposition of religious morality by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007/40 "2004-07-01T19:23:43Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Sorry, I don’t agree with tolerating bigotry and that’s what I’d define a church that refuses to marry a gay couple as. Diversity isn’t always the best thing. I don’t think our friend **stpauler** is familiar with the views of **spectrum**. No church in the land is under any obligation to marry anyone. And check me if I’m wrong here, but because they have no obligation to perform the ceremony, they can’t be liable for NOT perfoming it. Not that it matters. There are plenty of churches _willing_ to perform the ceremony now. When it becomes legal, gay people will find them and avail themselves of that service. And there’s always the ‘Justice of the Peace’ route. The church’s views on gay marriage are none of the state’s business. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kathleen-parker-warns-gay-marriage-means-the-end-of-socas/253007.md?page=3)