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?
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.
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 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.
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.”
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.
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.
Obviously, Catholic Charities disagrees. Their statement quoted below:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fortunately, the Constitution was written by better people than you.
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.
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.
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.
Hey, I’ve never said *I * wanted to get married by your chapel. If someone else does, that’s their business.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
It was the only ruling possible under the Constitution.
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.
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.