• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should same sex marriage be legal?

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't understand why:

  1. Anyone would think Churches should be forced to marry same sex couples.
As a civil governmental agent, sure; that could be the case. Since they are not the exclusive agent it doesn't matter so much. Anybody can get a certified marriage somewhere else.

Why anyone would think Churches should be stripped from their rights to legally marry if they dont.
The church is on shaky legal ground on this one. It technically doesn't need the ability to be the legal authenticator of marriage certificates, and it already doesn't recognize related civil actions such as civil divorces and civil unions. The church might issue marriage certificates, but it doesn't really recognize the state's authority in the matter. The church is its own authority and shows that it is through ignoring divorce and civil unions.

Because Gay people pay taxes to maintain the civil marriage licensing system.
Rather than 'Stripping away' the church ability to perform marriage, it would just mean that the church would recognize its own ceremony as the real marriage ceremony and not the marriage certificate. It would simply not recognize state marriage certificates and instead only recognize its own ceremonies. It already doesn't recognize civil marriages and civil divorces. They don't count, so it already has shown that it can operate independently through its own ceremonies without involvement of civil authority. It would not matter if the government stopped letting churches issue civil marriage certificates.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
But the Catholic Church is the 5th largest charitable organization in the United States.

The 200 Largest U.S. Charities - Forbes.com

...And the #1 largest globally. Why tax that?
Not EVERYTHING that the Catholic (or any other) Church does is charity. They must all, for example, pay their employees, keep up their properties, and so forth, just like any other business.

So what would be wrong with separating every church's ordinary business from whatever charity work they do? They could then register the charity work for tax exemption, and I would be fine with that.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
As a civil governmental agent, sure; that could be the case. Since they are not the exclusive agent it doesn't matter so much. Anybody can get a certified marriage somewhere else.

Some traditional Christians and other religious believers would be happy with the state being removed from the process of 'sacramental' (grace-infused) marriage. I had a discussion once with a Baha'i scholar who actually welcomed this development for Baha'i weddings.

However, many others - I reckon the vast majority - would see this as an infringement of their religious liberty (however one dices it), in the sense that on the basis of their conscientious religious beliefs, the law is effectively discriminating against their right to have their church/mosque/synagogue/temple legally conduct or solemnise their marriage in accordance with their religious conception of marriage, and in this way the state is encroaching upon the autonomy / freedom of their religious bodies (i.e. in Catholicism the Libertas ecclesiae ("freedom of the Church") is fundamental, and I imagine Muslims would feel the same about mosques).
 
Last edited:

Cooky

Veteran Member
Not EVERYTHING that the Catholic (or any other) Church does is charity. They must all, for example, pay their employees, keep up their properties, and so forth, just like any other business.

So what would be wrong with separating every church's ordinary business from whatever charity work they do? They could then register the charity work for tax exemption, and I would be fine with that.

What exactly would you tax though on a non-profit organization like the Catholic Church for example?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
In the US it’s not whether same sex marriage should be legal because it is. And not by any law, referendum, vote or amendment that had to be enacted. It was always in the US Constitution as a fundamental right which, in a manner of speaking, the US Supreme Court pointed out in Obergefell v. Hodges.

The issue or question of marriage being from God (whose God?) is pointless because no marriage in the US is valid or legal without a state issued license. A hundred clergy persons could invoke every incarnation, manifestation or personality of God and perform a marriage but without that license that marriage is invalid. Clergy are permitted to sign marriage licenses as a nod to tradition. Therefore in US marriages God and his “laws” have no place. That’s the beauty of our Constitution.

For those who want religious weddings there are plenty of religious institutions that happily and willingly perform same sex marriages. I’d love a traditional Vedic wedding but I know as Hindus it’s not (currently) our way. Only because there’s no ritual for it, and Gods know we Hindus love our rituals. :D Though I’m told some pandits will wing it.

So in the US at least, it’s a done deal and a non-issue.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What exactly would you tax though on a non-profit organization like the Catholic Church for example?
Well, how about raising money to decorate your church? Or raising money to pay the priest, sexton and anybody else working for the church. These are not charitable things, and therefore don't seem to merit being treated as if they were.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Some traditional Christians and other religious believers would be happy with the state being removed from the process of 'sacramental' (grace-infused) marriage. I had a discussion with a Baha'i scholar once who actually welcomed this development.

However, many others - I reckon the vast majority - would see this as an infringement of their religious liberty (however one dices it), in the sense that on the basis of their conscientious religious beliefs, the law is effectively discriminating against their right to have their church / mosque / synagogue conduct their own legal marriages, and in this way encroaching upon the autonomy / freedom of their religious bodies (i.e. in Catholicism the Libertas ecclesiae ("freedom of the Church") is fundamental, and I imagine Muslims would feel the same about mosques).
Yes many might object, however marriages would continue no matter what the state said. There would be no real difference except that they would not be controlling a state function, the function of enforcing marriage contracts. If they wanted to argue that religious liberty meant turning control of that state function over to a religious body the onus would be upon them to demonstrate that. What they have now is a light touch, like they are blessing the state action. To claim that they are therefore enforcing the marriage through the state is harder to demonstrate and harder still to demonstrate that they should be able to do so. They already don't recognize state decisions about divorces and already don't recognize other state enforced civil unions.

(I feel I have written or read this before, like this is deja vu. Am I parroting someone else's post? I feel like I'm not coming up with this material.)
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Those posters are idiots. Don't take the bait.

They also clearly do not know the US Constitution. My disdain for organized Christianity is probably no secret but I recognize their right under US law to perform or not perform any religious rituals or functions they choose.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Yes many might object, however marriages would continue no matter what the state said. There would be no real difference except that they would not be controlling a state function, the function of enforcing marriage contracts. If they wanted to argue that religious liberty meant turning control of that state function over to a religious body the onus would be upon them to demonstrate that. What they have now is a light touch, like they are blessing the state action. To claim that they are therefore enforcing the marriage through the state is harder to demonstrate and harder still to demonstrate that they should be able to do so. They already don't recognize state decisions about divorces and already don't recognize other state enforced civil unions.

(I feel I have written or read this before, like this is deja vu. Am I parroting someone else's post? I feel like I'm not coming up with this material.)

The State doesn't enforce marriage contracts.. They deal with the five issues of dissolution.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But the Catholic Church is the 5th largest charitable organization in the United States.

The 200 Largest U.S. Charities - Forbes.com
Being treated as a charity for tax purposes and doing actual charitable work are very different things.

...And the #1 largest globally. Why tax that?
A corporation is only taxed on its profits. Even if the Catholic Church was made taxable, it would only actually pay tax if it wasn't actually functioning as a non-profit.

Do you think the Catholic Church runs a profit?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't know. I guess it just totally ignores and arguably discriminates against those who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
No, it just acknowledges that when someone is acting as an agent of the state - e.g. solemnizing a legal marriage - they ought to act in accordance with the principles that the state is founded on, such as equality.

Religious freedom would still be preserved, since no religious minister would be forced to solemnize legal marriages. They could still preside over purely religious commitment ceremonies according to their own doctrines and traditions; they could even call these ceremonies "weddings." These purely religious ceremonies just wouldn't fulfill the requirements for a legal marriage.

If a religious minister wanted to voluntarily take on the role of officiating over legal marriages - including accepting any rules that the state has around this - it would be their own free choice.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The marriage contract is between the 2 parties serves as a registry of the K... It would come into play at the rights upon the death of one of the parties.. or if they had a dispute over breaking the agreement.
What's "the K?"

And what "marriage contract?" I was married by a religious minister; there was no "marriage contract." There was only the government marriage license. I did sign their church marriage registry, but this is no more of a contract than the guestbook at a tourist site is.

As it stands now - at least here in Canada - couples can be considered to be in a common-law marriage without any ceremony or signing a marriage license at all. All they need to do is meet a few criteria, including putting themselves forward as a married couple.

I'm sure that if a couple went through a religious wedding ceremony in front of their family and friends, this could be a significant factor in deciding whether they really were "putting themselves forward as a married couple."
 

sooda

Veteran Member
What's "the K?"

And what "marriage contract?" I was married by a religious minister; there was no "marriage contract." There was only the government marriage license. I did sign their church marriage registry, but this is no more of a contract than the guestbook at a tourist site is.

As it stands now - at least here in Canada - couples can be considered to be in a common-law marriage without any ceremony or signing a marriage license at all. All they need to do is meet a few criteria, including putting themselves forward as a married couple.

I'm sure that if a couple went through a religious wedding ceremony in front of their family and friends, this could be a significant factor in deciding whether they really were "putting themselves forward as a married couple."
Of course it's a contract. domestic law 101
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Fine with me... Just please don't try and force religious institutions to perform them.

Why not? Are you asking secular society to respect religious sensibilities when the church is so obviously disinterested in respecting secular society's values? The church steadfastly opposed the advent of same-sex marriage - an example of it trying to impose its will and values on others who have no interest in what the church and its adherents believe - yet now it wants its values respected.

In a related matter, my wife and I, American expats, have lived in the same Mexican village for ten years, which features a large Catholic church. Today is the last day of a nine-day religious celebration (called a novenario) of the local saint, St. Andrés, in which every day, all-day and into the night, bottles rockets are being fired off as marching brass bands go up and down the streets.

This terrifies children and pets, including my two dogs (I just heard an explosion) that has one of my dogs under the bed in hiding, the other trembling and panting,unable to stop pacing and running. We have to keep the doors closed for nine days to mute the explosions and bands. Our black lab is afraid to go outside to relieve herself, and frequently gets a bladder infection from holding her urine too long. I just took her breakfast to her under the bed. She's too nervous to eat.

I suppose the church expects us to respect it, but the opposite is true. We consider it a terrible neighbor, selfishly making its noises - originally to scare off evil spirits and demons..

Sure, we're outsiders, and have to suffer this in silence. We would be told that if we don't like it, too bad, and that is correct.

But what should we think about this religion and its superstitions? It's the same situation - they would expect to be accepted if not respected even as they terrorize our pets. A friend of ours with the same problem tells us that he curses the virgin every time that church molests his household's peace and tranquility. I feel the same. We love most of Mexico, its people, and most of its culture, but not the church. The only impact this church has on our lives is this to degrade it. It does nothing for the community.
  • "Fiestas de San Andrés - At a Glance - Ajijic’s patron saint is Saint Andrew & every November, the townspeople honor him with a novenario: 9 days of daily processions, music & fireworks. Lots of fireworks." https://lakesideguide.mx/fiestas-san-andres/
This would be a nice festival if it were confined to the plaza rather than marching up and down our streets making children cry and pets tremble and hide. If there were only the castillos (see link and embedded video if interested), we could support this holiday just for its cultural value as we do the non-noisy holidays such a Mexican Christmas, a different holiday here than in the states, one in which children reenact the wandering of Joseph and Mary, far from home, looking for shelter for her baby to be born. The "manger" is often across the street from us, and we turn out on the streets to see the kids knock there and finally be received, along with Magi and "camels" (burros stand in for them)

But under the circumstances, we merely endure this. We did disappear to another village about 45 minutes away one year, but it was incredibly inconvenient and disruptive to our routine, not to mention that this other village didn't occupy our interest for nine days. We were simply killing time waiting for the holiday to end in a hotel room in a community in which we knew nobody, one we have only visited two other times, each for a half-day of a meal and shopping and wandering about before returning home.

Incidentally, the local government is trying to rein in this noise offensive, inasmuch as the net economic impact of this holiday is to cost the community whatever the fifty percent or so of the local expats - a community of several thousand - who disappear for a week-and-a-half to some other location and spend their money there cost the local vendors and tax treasury - yet another burden imposed by this church on its community.

This is a recurring theme across all forms of Christianity - please respect our beliefs even as we call yours sinful. Please respect our religious freedom to not have to bake wedding cakes or perform marriage services for these people even as we labor incessantly to remove that right to same-sex marriage.

Can you see why many simply have no further interest in what the religious demand for themselves? I just don't care if religious bakers are forced to choose between closing their shops, losing lawsuits, or serving people of whom they disapprove. After all , we are forced to either endure them here or flee to a quieter place that will accept our dogs every year because of a church that doesn't respect anything but its own wishes.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
If we're talking about a religious ceremony, I think that would depend entirely on the content of the ceremony.

A religious ceremony is the sacrament, but that is also a K (contract).. it just comes with the blessings of your church.

The contract is the agreement between the parties to the marriage. The state is not a party to the agreement.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
For those who don't care what God thinks....
Nobody knows what God thinks.

Here in America, God used to think that slavery and genocide and oppression of women and gays was moral. Says so, right there in the Bible.

Christians back track a lot around here.
Here, meaning that they like to say that the the Christians who did all those things weren't True Christians. Well, some of those things.
Depends on who is claiming to speak for God and what they want the Bible to say.

Solid proof, to me, that Christianity doesn't mean anything more important than what someone who identifies as Christian believes. That could be most anything.
Tom
 
Top