Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Aqualung]

Well, then I guess it's great we never have to worry about such because it's a non-problem. Religious institutions already have the liberty to deny performing marriage to any couple they wish.

Yes, let's just dismiss this entire point because it's not true right now.

The fact of the matter still stands. IT MATTERS HOW YOU DEFINE EQUAL. It's NOT a non-issue no matter how much you want it to be, because THE WORD HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED. Religious institutions can deny to perform marriage BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT ALLOWED. If gay marriage were allowed, I don't find it that unlikely that any preacher who wanted to deny marrying gays because they are gay would be jailed for discrimination (just like I have the right to hire or not hire anybody I want, but if I don't want to hire a black person because they are black that's discrimination and I am forced to).

 

[Aqualung]

Civil is generally accepted as secular. No one is suggesting that religious institutions be made to marry anyone, gay or straight, that they don't want to.

Nobody denied it, either. In fact, nobody defined equality at all. I understand that there are levels of equality and postive and negative equality. (Ie, equality that requires people give something vs equality that prevents people from taking something). Since you didn't define it, why are jumping on my for acknowledging this?

 

[Aqualung]

Trust me, there are enough liberal churches, UU churches, and non-church-affiliated ministers who are willing to marry gay couples that the ACLU isn't going to come banging on the door of any Protestant or Catholic church demanding that they marry someone.

Pshaw. The ACLU will band on anybody's doors. And I will trust history more than I will trust your statement. People love civil rights lawsuits.

 

[kinji_2007]

Gays are wrong and if the government was Christian oriented they would agree. Equal rights? lol They have much worse to worry about than rights.

 

[logician]

Why is the RW and Xian conservatives so interested in what happens in the privacy of other's bedrooms?

 

[Sunstone]

Wrong. Christians accually do have the right to influence society in a way that fits their beliefs. I call that democracy.

If we were a democracy, you might have a point. But we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. We have constitutional principles -- unlike a true democracy, which amounts only to mob rule. And one of our principles -- unwritten, but vital to being an American -- is to treat people fairly. That's not something the Religious Right wants to do.

 

[Storm]

Religious institutions already have the liberty to deny performing marriage to any couple they wish.

Yes, let's just dismiss this entire point because it's not true right now.

Excuse me? What religious institution is forced to marry anyone?

The Catholics deny marriage to those who have been previously married without having the prior marriage annulled.

No, wait.... were you referring to the post that claimed that anti-gay-marriage churches would be forced?

 

[Sunstone]

Has anyone been able to tell us why gay rights might be incombatible to religious liberty?

If gays ever get rights, they'll bang on our doors demanding we marry them in our living rooms. But it doesn't stop there. No sir! After we marry them, they'll want to re-decorate those very same living rooms! No living room is safe if gays get rights! After they get rights, it's gonna be endless disco nights -- right in our living rooms! That's what's at issue here, sir! Nothing less than the home decor of America! Nothing less than our traditional living room couch potato life-style!

 

[Aqualung]

Excuse me? What religious institution is forced to marry anyone?

The Catholics deny marriage to those who have been previously married without having the prior marriage annulled.

No, wait.... were you referring to the post that claimed that anti-gay-marriage churches would be forced?

read my whole posts and it might make more sense to you. I know, language is funny and annoying like that, but single sentences usuaally cannot contain the entire point.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The flaw in your argument is that marriage is a union between a man and a women regardless of religious affiliation.

That's just semantics. If that is how you choose to define the word "marriage", great. When I say "marriage" I'm talking about the legal aspect, the legal agreement that people enter into with each other. If two people want to enter into a legal agreement where, for example, person A has immediate and unquestionable visitation rights if person B is critically ill at a hospital, I see no reason for our government to restrict the ability to enter into such a legal agreement to heterosexuals.

You may as well say that people who go crabfishing can't get a permit, since fishing is defined as using bait to catch fish.

 

[Storm]

read my whole posts and it might make more sense to you. I know, language is funny and annoying like that, but single sentences usuaally cannot contain the entire point.

Funnily enough, I already did that. For some reason, I asked for clarification anyway. Why don't you provide it, instead of being snide?

 

[standing_alone]

Religious institutions can deny to perform marriage BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT ALLOWED.

Umm, actually same-sex marriage not being allowed has nothing to do with religious institutions currently being able to deny performing marriages. Religious institutions can and do deny marriages to opposite-sex couples. The Catholic church my grandfather went to refused to marry him for his second marriage (even though he divorced my grandmother because she was sleeping with several other men). Now, I think that it was really stupid that this Catholic church wouldn't allow my grandfather to be remarried under their roof (for he got divorced for a very legitimate reason), but it was every right of theirs to do so and my grandfather respected it and found a different church. Just as the church can deny my grandfather from remarrying as they found it not to be in accordance to their religious belief, so could a church do the same thing with a same-sex couple.

If gay marriage were allowed, I don't find it that unlikely that any preacher who wanted to deny marrying gays because they are gay would be jailed for discrimination

Oh give me a break. Jailed? :biglaugh:

If any such case came up against a religious institution, it would never stand in court.


It's a non-issue. I stand by my point.

 

[Sunstone]

I firmly believe that if gays get rights, anyone who refuses to marry gays in their living room and hang a disco ball from the ceiling afterwards is highly likely to be jailed!!!!

 

[Aqualung]

Umm, actually same-sex marriage not being allowed has nothing to do with religious institutions currently being able to deny performing marriages.

That's not what I meant, but since I can't think of a better way to phrase it, i don't know what to do.

Religious institutions can and do deny marriages to opposite-sex couples.

That's because nobody cares about equality. Once it becomes legally forbidden to discriminate, it might become like my example about hiring and firing employees. It used to be allowed that people could hire and fire for any reason, because, after all, it was their business. Once it equal rights were extended to black people, it became illegal to hire and fire anybody for any reason, notwithstanding that they were private businesses. Equal rights in this case became a positive thing - people were required to GIVE black people something, rather than just not allowed to TAKE something. I find it at least possible given the history of civil rights in this country that this could backlash into a similar situation. Now, churches are allowed to deny marriage to anybody for any reason. After all, it is thteir church. But if equal marriage rights were extended to gay couples, it might soon become illegal to deny marriage for many of the reasons that marriages are currently denied, including homosexuality. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, now, remember that. I'm just saying that it's possible, especially in light of the history of civil rights, that such a thing could happen, and if it did, it WOULD be infringing on religion's rights.

it was every right of theirs to do so and my grandfather respected it and found a different church.

It used to be my right to deny hiring anybody I chose if it were bad for my business (or because it is against my moral convictions, etc), just like it is currently the right of any church to marry anybody because it is against their religious convictions (or because it is bad for business). Yet now this is not possible and, yes, I could get jail time for disciminating in employment.

Oh give me a break. Jailed? :biglaugh:

I know, it's hard to believe that people can be jailed for breaking laws, but it happens even in countries that aren't writing in anarchy.

 

[Aqualung]

Funnily enough, I already did that. For some reason, I asked for clarification anyway. Why don't you provide it, instead of being snide?

I can't read your mind. If you want clarification, you'll have to point out which specific points are unclear. Responding to one unspecific sentence that I wrote does nothing for me and I therefore can't help you.

 

[lunamoth]

Oh, I know I am going to be sorry for getting into this one. First I think that we should have full civil rights for gays (marriage, adoption, visiting rights, the whole nine yards). But we should not assume that this will not impinge on the rights of religions, we must be vigilent that it does not.

Why do I say this?

Remember not too long ago in the UK it was decided that Catholic agenices MUST help gay couples to adopt children. The end result, Catholic agencies are no longer going to do adoptions period because this went against their beliefs.

Just food for thought.

 

[standing_alone]

I had a really long post written out but the forum ate it (seems like it's only when I write long posts that the forum has to do this), so you'll have to settle for this "well, these are the main points and whatever else I remember" post. Actually, you're probably more fortunate because I won't be apt to repeat myself or ramble as bad as I normally do.

That's because nobody cares about equality.

No. It's because religious institutions have the right to free exercize and denying couples marriage under their roof doesn't place any undue burden on the couple (as they can get married at the courthouse or at a willing church).

But if equal marriage rights were extended to gay couples, it might soon become illegal to deny marriage for many of the reasons that marriages are currently denied, including homosexuality.

Just keep in mind that sexual orientation is currently not a protected status under federal anti-discrimination laws. I don't think legalizing same-sex marriage would automatically change this.

It used to be my right to deny hiring anybody I chose if it were bad for my business (or because it is against my moral convictions, etc), just like it is currently the right of any church to marry anybody because it is against their religious convictions (or because it is bad for business). Yet now this is not possible and, yes, I could get jail time for disciminating in employment.

Religious institutions are protected by the Free Exercize Clause. Employment anti-discrimination laws don't apply to them, as far as I can remember. I don't believe anyone has forced any church that bars members of certain races to integrate (such as the Creativity Movement/Word Church of the Creator)...

And again, sexual orientation currently is not a protected status under federal anti-discrimination laws.

I know, it's hard to believe that people can be jailed for breaking laws, but it happens even in countries that aren't writing in anarchy.

How often is anyone jailed for discrimination? Aren't people/businesses found guilty usually fined? Have any data on jailings related to anti-discrimination violations? I'd find it really interesting.

 

[Storm]

Excuse me? What religious institution is forced to marry anyone?

The Catholics deny marriage to those who have been previously married without having the prior marriage annulled.

No, wait.... were you referring to the post that claimed that anti-gay-marriage churches would be forced?

I can't read your mind. If you want clarification, you'll have to point out which specific points are unclear. Responding to one unspecific sentence that I wrote does nothing for me and I therefore can't help you.

Well, then, I suggest you take your own advice and read my entire post. Was your statement, that we should 'dismiss this as untrue right now' (paraphrased)

1) saying that the post you quoted - which said religious institutions are NOT forced to marry couples against their wishes - is untrue? If so, I challenge you to demonstrate the assertion.

2) were you referring to the post that you didn't quote, which said that anti-gay-marriage chrurches would be forced to marry gay couples against their will?

 

[Green Gaia]

Now, churches are allowed to deny marriage to anybody for any reason. After all, it is thteir church. But if equal marriage rights were extended to gay couples, it might soon become illegal to deny marriage for many of the reasons that marriages are currently denied, including homosexuality. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, now, remember that. I'm just saying that it's possible, especially in light of the history of civil rights, that such a thing could happen, and if it did, it WOULD be infringing on religion's rights.

Churches (and ministers - in my religion a minister decides whom he or she will or will not marry, not the congregation, although the congregation can put forth in the by-laws rules about who is married at the church, but doesn't control what the minister does otherwise) now can say who they will and won't marry. No, I don't think that it is possible that would change and to suggest such is quite obvious to me that those who use that argument against same gender marriage are grasping at straws because they know they have nothing else to throw at us.

See the thing is, if one minister or church won't marry a couple, there is another down the street that will. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that GOVERNMENT will not allow same gender couples legal civil marriage. It really has nothing to do with religion except in the minds of those who believe they and their religion own the word and definition of marriage. Therefore, equal rights for gays will not infringe upon the right of religion and churches to discriminate against whomever they choose.

 

[Aqualung]

Well, then, I suggest you take your own advice and read my entire post. Was your statement, that we should 'dismiss this as untrue right now' (paraphrased)

1) saying that the post you quoted - which said religious institutions are NOT forced to marry couples against their wishes - is untrue? If so, I challenge you to demonstrate the assertion.

No.

2) were you referring to the post that you didn't quote, which said that anti-gay-marriage chrurches would be forced to marry gay couples against their will?

I am currently saying it's a possibility, but that's not what I was referring to at the time.