Should a Christian minister be forced to perform gay marriages?

[isanbirder]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/christian-ministers-told-to-perform-gay-weddings-or-face-jail-time-74865/

This was bound to happen sooner or later.

My opinion: a civil official can be ordered to perform a gay marriage, but a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever, should not be forced to perform such a marriage against his conscience.

[i claudius]

I do not believe anyone should be forced to do something they do not believe in

[Scott]

I think they should be fed to the lions and if God is on their side, he will save them and then they shouldn't have to perform same sex marriages.

Barring that solution, I hope someone opens a chapel that welcomes one and all.

[ozsamurai]

Ethics aside, would you want to be married by anyone who opposes your very existence, sexuality and lifestyle. Why would you need recognition from them? Just to make a point, make trouble?

Oz

[Scott]

Ethics aside, would you want to be married by anyone who opposes your very existence, sexuality and lifestyle. Why would you need recognition from them? Just to make a point, make trouble?

Oz

It's not such a bad idea to start a marriage out the way about 50'% of them end up.

[David48]

From the OP ...

My opinion: a civil official can be ordered to perform a gay marriage, but a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever, should not be forced to perform such a marriage against his conscience.

I agree, the Church isn't the Government ... there is no compulsion.

.

[Caitrin]

Do your job or quit your job. That is to say, if you have an official position, it must be applied equally. If you don't want it applied equally, quit the position. You can sanctify marriages you like, but you still have to send everyone to the city clerk for the official license. You can't do both.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Caitrin

[Morakot]

I think they should be fed to the lions and if God is on their side, he will save them and then they shouldn't have to perform same sex marriages.

Barring that solution, I hope someone opens a chapel that welcomes one and all.

What a strange comment, Scott. I don't think there are lions in Idaho...

If the state permits minsters to perform marriages that are legally recognised than there should not be a choice and marriages ought to be perform regardless what the minister thinks of it.

If however, there is no such legal function than the minster should be able to do he or she pleases.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Morakot

[uptheos]

I don't think government should interfere with the workings of the church.

What next, subpoenaing sermons?

Agree 100% that civil officials should have to do it.

[Jingthing]

They don't run a church.

They run a for profit wedding business.

So this case is not as black and white as being presented.

Of course in general, in the USA anyway, the civil rights issue is about legalizing CIVIL marriages and is not about forcing religious institutions to participate.

But again this couple does not run a church.

Similar issues come up when civil clerks cite their religious beliefs for reasons not to perform marriages.

That is not ambiguous at all, they are refusing to do their jobs and should be fired.

The USA is not a theocracy.

To be clear, the U.S. right wing is milking such cases as a way to attack gay rights and paint them as bullies.

That's a big part of their new tactic, playing the act that religious people are being persecuted by the big bad gays.

Don't fall for it, it's a sleazy attack and they are lying.

The TRUTH is no actual religious institution (church, etc.) is compelled by any U.S. law to perform gay marriages and there is no movement at all to do that either.

Again, this place is called HITCHING POST. Sound like a church to you?

Do you get the difference? Profit business classification vs. religious institution?

Edited October 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

They don't run a church.

They run a for profit wedding business.

So this case is not as black and white as being presented.

Of course in general, in the USA anyway, the civil rights issue is about legalizing CIVIL marriages and is not about forcing religious institutions to participate.

But again this couple does not run a church.

Similar issues come up when civil clerks cite their religious beliefs for reasons not to perform marriages.

That is not ambiguous at all, they are refusing to do their jobs and should be fired.

The USA is not a theocracy.

Since we are being religious, so I can play the devils advocate.

Your statement of 'they are refusing to do their jobs and should be fired' ... they are conscientious objectors. Don't they have a Civil Right also as such?

.

[Caitrin]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Since we are being religious, so I can play the devils advocate.

Your statement of 'they are refusing to do their jobs and should be fired' ... they are conscientious objectors. Don't they have a Civil Right also as such?

.

No.

"By the power invested me by the State of" whatever whatever. That is an official position to act as an agent of the State. The State cannot discriminate.

They have a civil right not to sanctify a marriage if they are a religious leader, but if they are invested with a position to act as an agent of the State, they do not have a "civil right" to refrain from the performance of their duties as a State agent.

[Morakot]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Since we are being religious, so I can play the devils advocate.

Your statement of 'they are refusing to do their jobs and should be fired' ... they are conscientious objectors. Don't they have a Civil Right also as such?

.

No.

"By the power invested me by the State of" whatever whatever. That is an official position to act as an agent of the State. The State cannot discriminate.

They have a civil right not to sanctify a marriage if they are a religious leader, but if they are invested with a position to act as an agent of the State, they do not have a "civil right" to refrain from the performance of their duties as a State agent.

Yes, theoretically, but in Idaho anyone can rock up and perform this state function. Just full in this form and you're ready to go to legally marry people. This makes the issue of compliance more difficult.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Morakot

[Morakot]

To be clear, the U.S. right wing is milking such cases as a way to attack gay rights and paint them as bullies.

That's a big part of their new tactic, playing the act that religious people are being persecuted by the big bad gays.

Interesting. Thanks for that.

[Caitrin]

Oh, I totally get that, but I thought David48 was speaking in theoretical terms. As a political theorist (my graduate work was political science/government), my own brand of political philosophy means I pretty much oppose the idea of representatives of any religion simultaneously operating as agents of the State. Be a minister, or be the person who validates the civil contract we know of as "civil marriage." But don't be both. I realise it's easier on people getting married to be able to have those two people (say their parish priest, their imam, or their rabbi) be the same person, but I consider it a conflict of interests.

[Morakot]

As a political theorist (my graduate work was political science/government), my own brand of political philosophy means I pretty much oppose the idea of representatives of any religion simultaneously operating as agents of the State. Be a minister, or be the person who validates the civil contract we know of as "civil marriage." But don't be both. I realise it's easier on people getting married to be able to have those two people (say their parish priest, their imam, or their rabbi) be the same person, but I consider it a conflict of interests.

Well said. I agree.

Nice talking to you.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Morakot

[Jingthing]

Here you go.

Like I said, this is about American right wing anti-gay politics and they are LYING and DISTORTING big time. They have lost the bigger war at the national level and public opinion level and now they are resorting to shameless mud slinging.

The religious right is spewing hate and lies, claiming that two ministers are being forced to marry same-sex couples--even claiming the ministers have been arrested. How is this possible?

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/how_many_lies_is_the_religious_right_willing_to_tell_in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

[isanbirder]

The original link did describe these people.as ministers, JT, so it is arguable that the Hitching Post is a church in spite of how it sounds.

I agree with those who say it would be better if the Church (whatever church) did not act as the agent of the state in this case, as otherwise there is bound to be confusion.

[Jingthing]

Until two weeks ago the Hitching Post was operating as a secular business so as such, they were definitely not, 100 percent NOT a church!

So indeed they were theoretically subject to the rule of law of the town they are located in, which has a local law against discrimination based on sexual orientation (in FOR PROFIT publicly available SERVICES).

Now very recently (two weeks) they changed their business structure to a religious corporation. Many U.S. churches operate with that structure.

HOWEVER, the Hitching Post is STILL a FOR PROFIT religious corporation, so they may still be subject to their LOCAL law against discrimination because it applies to FOR PROFIT businesses.

So now with this change from the owners, there may be some legal ambiguity as the intention was certainly not to force actual regular churches to do anything. So there's the ambiguity. From a motivational POV, they are doing the same thing as before and only changed their structure to be legal with their discrimination. Their town isn't really pushing this ... they are.

Again the anti-gay right wing is trying to pretend there is a level of gay activism that actually doesn't exist. They are trying to suggest that the gays are trying to force churches to perform gay marriages but that is not the truth. That is not part of the movement. That is up to religious people within their religions to decide. Separation of church and state ... a valued liberal principle in the U.S.

So this for profit chapel noise is really a fake issue ... part of a predictable backlash against the success of CIVIL U.S. gay marriage equality.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Jingthing