I've never quite understood the argument that allowing same-sex marriage violate's people's freedom of religion.... Why, because it forces people to recognize it for public and legal purposes? Well ya, just like Catholics must recognize the marriages of people who have re-married, Mormons must recognize the marriages of those who don't marry in the Temple, and members of any religious denomination must recognize the marriages of those who are married in a secular ceremony before a judge. Someone having a religious belief does not mean the entire country has to bend around them, that is not what freedom of religion is. Rather, that's what forcing your religion on everyone else looks like. Freedom of religion does not men protecting the popularity of your religion, it is simply a protection that you may continue to believe and practice your religion no matter how unpopular. With that said, I'm curious how those who see Same-Sex marriage as a threat to freedom of religion can say anything different about something like this: A possible 6 months in jail and fine for anyone, including Clergy, to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Strikes me as pretty outrageous, whether you're a devout protector of religious freedom or an advocate for SSM.
I agree. But no religion is even forced to accept same-sex marriage. Just as Mormons are not forced to marry outside the temple, no religion will be forced to marry gays. Its not a violation of freedom of religion because the marriage license is not the same thing as all the various ceremonial marriages of religions. The civil aspect of marriage is completely different.
I agree, the civil aspects are different, but that's not what many of these people are arguing. And in the case presented in the OP, the civil aspect is intruding on the the religious ceremony by punishing clergy that do marriage ceremonies.
Those who make that argument are left with paranoid hypotheticals- "Churchs would be FORCED to perform same-sex marriage"....so simply ask "What racist church has ever been 'forced' to marry an inter-racial couple against the teachings of that church?" OR more basically, they believe "My religion teachs me to hate homosexuality....so making same-sex marriage legal is taking away my Constitutional freedom of religion to hate gays!"
Why would gays wanna get married inside a church or by a priest? a mayor can do it and they do not have to endure standing in a place where everyone hates them.
There are plenty of churches that don't hate gays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations
Since I don't support govt involvement in any marriage, I support the freedom of religion. If the Catholic church or local evangelicals don't support marriage among homosexuals then start your own church even if it's only 10 members. Heck, take advantage of tax exemptions and write-offs. Advertise your services and grow the congregation. I am all for liberty and freedom vs forcing established churches to perform marriages between homosexuals or other unsupported behaviors. I view this as being no different than gay troop leaders in the Boy Scouts. If they don't offer it, then start the Gay Scouts and kick them right in the competition. The same with churches. A church can begin in your garage or basement and there are lots of vacant commercial and retail places available at good rates when the congregation grows. I went to church in a barn (literally) for 3 years and it was a big day when we had raised enough money to pay rent.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people think we don't have our own churches (MCC) or that no other denominations willingly perform marriage rites for same-sex couples. We already have places to go for the ceremony. So this is not about trying to force churches to marry us. It's about the law, not religion. Prior to enacting marriage recognition of same-sex couples, a couple of places in New York already tried this business of interfering with churches marrying same-sex couples. A church can perform whatever marriage rites it wishes. Trying to suppress that didn't work in New York, and it won't work in Indiana. It is telling though - for some people this is very much about using the law as a means to make themselves and their religion superior to others..
Bully for you and frankly, I've no need to know that. I fully support the right for there to be churches and they can even refuse to allow entry to those who have straight sex. That is the beauty of liberty. We all practice religion or what ever in our own way. Maybe I'll start the church of naked, fit women between ages 21-40. I should be allowed to do that and the same goes for any church which wishes, or doesn't wish to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies. Here I sit, firmly ensconced in the corner of individual liberty and freedom of religion yet you try and hurl a veiled insult my way; very telling indeed.
And just as it is not legal for a church that prohibits heterosexuality to deny heterosexuals marriage benefits, it is not legal for a church that prohibits homosexuality to deny homosexuals marriage benefits.
Then I submit that you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously in a discussion about "same-sex marriage and freedom of religion." And just so there's no confusion, I don't subscribe to any religion anymore. So do I. Not sure you have a point. Why would they care? When I was still religious and attended the MCC church, it wasn't just gay men and lesbians, but also straight allies. The assumption that gay people are heterophobic is just plain stupid (if not to say sounding suspiciously like projecting). Whatever floats your boat. Nothing thinly veiled about. I'll tell you right to your face how ignorant you sounded. Clear enough? As for the "ensconced in the corner of individual liberty and freedom of religion" schtick, who are you trying to convince? Us, or yourself?
thank you for being honest enough that you will insult anyone who has a differing opinion. I really do appreciate the fact you admit that you resort to insults. You have very strong OPINIONS which for the most part are fantasy, but at least you stand by them. You have to give credit to anyone who makes a stand no matter how absurd it is.
It wasn't a difference of opinion. It was a statement that illustrated your ignorance of the topic you're attempting to discuss. You call it an insult, I call it a statement of my opinion. You're entitled to your asinine opinion of my opinions. Care to try actually discussing the topic now? Or is this just an attempt to distract us from your earlier blunder?
I think to many people confuse freedom of religion with freedom from being offended or freedom to force your religion into other people's lives.
yup, as well as freedom to force your lifestyle upon those who find it offensive. There are no such "rights" within the Constitution.
It is absolutely wrong to use the law to prohibit religious ceremony of any kind(within reason, no sacrifices or other funny business). It would be wrong for anyone to use the law to force churches to perform same sex marriages, and it's wrong to use the law to forbid it. It's wrong to use the law to tell churches what to do on the matter at all. If you want to make a law that says a same-sex marriage performed by a religious official is not legally binding(in a state where same-sex marriage is not legal), fine. But no penalties at all. That's monumentally asinine. I hope this crock of a law is struck down.
Not only will it be struck down, it will most likely serve as a catalyst for further discussion and litigation, leading to the legalizing of gay marriage.
Gays having the same rights as everyone else is not forcing their lifestyle onto anyone else. Do you feel encroached on because on your neighbors marriage? Does your neighbor having a job at the same place as you negatively effect your life? Does having a gay couple living next door brain down your property value? No? There's your answer.
