I do see a problem....sigh.

[Missn-Hitch]

I would like to think I am principled. I do not wish to oppress any religion. It has indeed been a great week and I have taken great pleasure in seeing the distress in our opponents' responses. However, what happens if, say, a pastor refuses to perform a gay wedding? Is this illegal? It seems to me the gay community would actively avoid such churches. I say this because I have two brothers who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage - and anything 'libruhl' for that matter. They are pastors in the AofG. I still love them of course, but I do not want them to get into legal trouble for refusing to perform a gay wedding. IOW, I just hope the gay community and the bigots who claim a certain brand of Christianity will just actively avoid each other.

Thoughts?

[hrmjustin]

1. I am gay and Christian and don't go where I am not welcome.

If i have to go to a wedding or funeral I will but I will not go to a church that preaches hate.

No clergy will be forced to perform weddings they don't want to.

No one is being hurt by marriage equslity.

[guillaumeb]

2. Churches can decide for themselves who they will marry.

The SCOTUS decision only affects civil marriage. Civil authorities must allow all persons equal access to civil marriage.

Much the same way that a Catholic priest will not conduct a Catholic ceremony for a non-Catholic couple.

[TM99]

3. A marriage license

is a legal document from the state.

No pastor is required to perform a wedding, even a heterosexual one, if they do not want to do so.

Separation of church and state is very real here.

There are plenty of legal representatives to marry those who seek it, and there are a great number of liberal Protestant denominations that have no problem with their pastors marrying gay couples.

Your brothers may be bigots and their actions atrocious, but no, they are not doing anything illegal. County clerks, justices of the peace, etc. will be doing something illegal if they refuse. Their only recourse is to quit if they don't want to be prosecuted for not marrying all that seek it legal.

This brouhaha will last for a short while, and then it will be a non-issue I predict. The battle has been fought and won.

[elleng]

4. NOT illegal for pastors to do so or to not do so;

We don't require such, AT ALL, but county clerks (or other officials) MUST issue licenses, and jurisdictions must provide means of formalizing marriages.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. A church that is open to the public for marriage for hire, would likely be considered

A public accommodation, and held to non-discrimination laws.

[elleng]

10. They might be required to open their doors.

Pastors would NOT be required to perform marriage services; it is not analogous to renting a room for the night (Heart of Atlanta Motel,) or providing public transportation (Trailways.)

[AtheistCrusader]

13. If they're doing it for non-members for hire, then yes, they would.

I was married for a price in a Presbyterian church neither my wife nor I were members of.

Let's say one of us was black, they couldn't turn us away for that reason. Same is true for gender.

[Half-Century Man]

28. Churchs preform weddings, not marriages.

A wedding is a ceremony, commonly religious, used to celebrate a marriage.

A marriage is a legal contract binding two people. A dissolution of a marriage is a legal proceeding called a divorce. Both of these proceedings involve the state.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. A distinction without a difference in my example.

[Half-Century Man]

31. If we are speaking of drive through wedding chapels

I would agree.

I suspect forcing a church, one with a regular attending congregation, cannot be forced to break their own tenants due to the first amendment.
There are Churches which still do snake handling in spite of the not infrequent deaths; their religious practice are protected.

I am speaking as a lay person not a lawyer.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. My example is my own wedding.

Full sized brick and mortar Presbyterian church. Paid a fee, got a video of the proceeding, pastor to do the vows, organ player, use of the basement rooms to prep, etc.

Neither of us was a member of the church. I'm an atheist. They didn't turn us away.

A church performin for-hire weddings like that would likely be held to non-discrimination statutes.

[Half-Century Man]

35. It all boils down to "happy to", "willing to", or "forced to".

The question is, can a religious ceremony commemorating a marriage be mandated by civil court?
I have my doubts.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. They would have a few options.

Easiest would be to discontinue for-hire public weddings.

[Missn-Hitch]

11. And that actually brings up another issue I was pondering.

The county clerk who resigned. Could she not just ask for another person to issue the marriage license? Wow, I know this is silly, but these people are true believers. Is there a way to accommodate this dilemma? I haven't read the story nor am I fluent in the legal ways to acquire a license.

[elleng]

12. I think that's what happened,

another person got that job (if I'm thinking of the same clerk you're referring to.)

There are not only ways to accommodate, they MUST figure out how to do it, and it's NOT a big deal. A local officer, county clerk often, has the job to do lots of necessary paper work, and marriage licenses is one of their tasks, REALLY no big deal, fluency in legal ways really not necessary.

[Missn-Hitch]

14. Maybe that it a different clerk...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/arkansas-gay-marriage_n_7691172.html

It is a big deal for these people, they will quit their jobs before issuing a license. This is the point I was making. Couldn't they sort the apps (straight/gay) and let the apps go different routes to license-hood? She would rather quit - wow.

[elleng]

17. Let her quit!

If anyone can't or won't do their job, GET OUT! Of COURSE there are ways it could be handled, but the idjits may have to be forced to recognize it.

[Missn-Hitch]

20. Eh, just trying to be pro-active in maintaining the high road on dealing with the idjits.

Sort of preemption to things I see happening. Coming up with a way a reasonable person could not argue against in order to accommodate and protect their soul from hell in issuing the licenses. I know how some of them think.

[Half-Century Man]

29. People who are willing to make self-destructive choices in the name of religion are nothing new.

We revere some as saints, we curse some as suicide bombers.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. if she hates jews is that ok too?

Hows about she quits her fucking job if she is too much of a fucking bigot to perform it?

[delrem]

5. I'm Canadian, RC background, not a believer.

I did go through the full indoctrination. And then some.

No RC priest would perform a marriage ceremony between any couple that hasn't gone through the entire required procedure. There would be no gay weddings, period, in the RC church. There is *no way* any government, anywhere, can force a RC priest to perform a sacrament (marriage is a sacrament, 'sacred', in the RC church), against the will of the church. At least no way that would be at all recognized by the church. There would be no "mixed marriages" between an RC and AofG couple until the AofG partner fully agreed with a string of stipulations regarding things like baptising and raising children as RC's.

Those restrictions stop at the church door. Although a lot of RC's would want their restrictive doctrine to be applied universally, by force - it can't be and won't be, by Canadian law. A RC can bypass those restrictions by getting married elsewhere, according to the law, and that marriage will be recognized across Canada, except by the RC church.

Maybe US law is different?

[Missn-Hitch]

7. Reply to 1-5: Ah, yes. What about trumpeting it

from the tree tops (social media) pointing to those that refuse. My brothers are older (mid-60's), I just hope the reaction will be simple and pass. Hell, I don't think they would have a gay couple ask....I am just thinking things through my friends. Thanks for the responses.

[cbayer]

27. Great idea. Like they did in NCarolina when they decided that

certain businesses could refuse to serve certain kinds of people.

People put signs in their windows saying, "We serve everyone", which made those that don't very obvious.

[Missn-Hitch]

21. Any uproar or public shaming aimed at these churches in Canada?

How about businesses that don't want anything to do with all-things-gay?

[delrem]

22. No more than usual.

I dunno. I'm surrounded by "gay" people, and couldn't care any less than I am of all the "hetero" people I'm surrounded by, and in general I think Canada is growing up about matters of sexuality.

I don't think many Canadians want "public shamings" and other witch-hunt tactics against *churches* to interfere with the evolution of this movement.
Aside from holding churches to the law, one works to change general public opinion to such extent that when a "church" doesn't change, it shames itself.
I don't know of any Canadian businesses that refuse service to "gays".
If it happened, I'm sure it would be widely broadcast and the business would go under. I can't imagine how that would comport with Canadian law. The lawsuits would be entertaining, to say the least!

[AtheistCrusader]

6. If they perform weddings for the public, they are a public accommodation and will likely

Have to not discriminate if they are approached by gay customers seeking this service. (Say, they like the church itself for architectural reasons or whatever.)

If they only marry members of the church, they cannot be forced to marry outsiders, and will not have to worry about this.

In a few years, this will all be moot, everyone will either be over it, or the republican empire will strike back and divorce marriage from civilly recognized unions of any sort.

If they can't have their way, they have a tendency to burn everything to the ground.

[Missn-Hitch]

9. Hear hear AC.

Sad. But we share the same mother and I don't wish them harm, just concerned. Funny, if they weren't my brothers I would have the same contempt that I bestow on other certain 'christians'.

[uriel1972]

15. If they weren't your brothers...

Just thinking about that. Why give them a pass because they are family and others not because they aren't? A little bit inconsistent.

I would deal with them because they are family, but not grant them special status in regards to their bigotry. That's just me.

Bigots are people too, I suppose and warrant some compassion for their affliction. However, that doesn't mean I have to like them even if they are 'family'.

[Missn-Hitch]

18. sorry for asking you to like my brothers. did i reaaally ask you to?

don't worry, I rarely speak to my brothers since our mom died last year. We have had more than few blow out yelling matches. Now, there really is no reason to, say, congregate. No inconsistency, it's MY family. 'family'? what does that mean, they are family but they aren't?

[delrem]

23. I understand, though.

This is one itemized thing, that you're concerned about.
I can't understand any complaint or question about your "liking" your brothers!
As you say: family. Or even just friends.

If your brothers are actively homophobic though, well, they aren't going to get much sympathy from any but other homophobic people.

[uriel1972]

24. I was wondering why you withold contempt...

from your brothers based on family. It just seems a little odd to me that you would hold a class of people in contempt (bigots), but set aside a special category for blood relatives.

"Funny, if they weren't my brothers I would have the same contempt that I bestow on other certain 'christians'."

I mean are their views any less contempt worthy due to close genetics?

I don't question you for having feelings for family, that's human, it's the special protection category for their vies I found interesting. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

As for the 'family' I was being a little obscure I guess. I mean I don't know what the hell is a family except people who care for each other in a big way. Not just Mum and Dad and the 2.4 kids.

Family is fluid for me as it could include adoptions, same-sex partnerships, people who are not related by law or genetics, but are just part of the family anyway.

[Missn-Hitch]

34. Ah, let me put it this way.

I would voluntarily be in the presence of bigots if my brother invited me to lunch - which we would probably get into a yelling match. We would hug and go our separate ways.

If I crossed paths in the daily course of life with bigots, I would actively avoid their presence.

So, let me say the contempt is always present, but the degree and how it manifests varies. Family vs. non-family.

Have a good day and a good 4th.

[uriel1972]

38. Fair enough and thank you... nt

[SheilaT]

16. Your post points out how very important it is for everyone to understand

the difference between secular things, like marriage licenses, and religious things, like wedding ceremonies performed by clergy.

No clergy should be required to perform a ceremony he or she is opposed to, such as a gay wedding. Because that's a religious ceremony. But a county clerk must be required to issue a marriage license, because that's a purely civil (secular) thing.

Too many sincerely religious people absolutely don't understand that there is a real divide between the religious and the secular. That's in no small part because in this country religion has been allowed to infiltrate a lot of secular life when it shouldn't have been allowed. Things like opening prayers at city council meetings. Or in Congress. The constant reference to God by secular leaders who really ought to know better. (I'm looking at you, Barack Obama, every single time you end a speech with "God Bless". And every other recent President who invokes the invisible sky fairy.)

My son is taking an American Lit class right now in college summer school. Recently he mentioned to me how astonished he was that so many of the early writers in this country were preachers. I said, Bingo! Now you understand why religion has such a strong hold in this country. Then he said, "Cotton Mather was the Fox News of his era." Kid is really insightful.

[Missn-Hitch]

19. The Cotten Mather Factor - haha. Excellent.

The pendulum is starting its descent.

[skepticscott]

25. Why is this even a question?

The SC decisions says very clearly that churches and individuals don't have to perform same-sex weddings if they don't want to. That aspect of the decision has been very well publicized, to show that the scare tactics being used by homophobes who have their knickers in a knot about it are completely bogus.

You might want to actually read the decision before you pose this type of question again. People on a liberal chat board might get the wrong idea about your motives in asking it.

[Missn-Hitch]

32. Ok, that is all I was asking. I am concerned about the scare tactics being used.

As for getting the wrong idea about my motives in asking it, no apologies from me. I tried my best to explain my motives - which are personal. I have lost my family in standing up against their bigotry and many other issues you and I agree on. I am grateful for the responses I received to my OP - maybe when I have a little extra time, I will read the decision in full. Although, I do not post much and the date I joined DU is recent, I have been coming to DU for the past 12-13 years. It has been a refuge. You have a good day.

[cbayer]

26. Pastors i the US have always been able to define who they will and won't marry.

They are permitted to practice their bigotry within the walls of their church.

But there are plenty out there that are more than happy to do it, so I hope they will make themselves known and available.

[tymorial]

39. I would image they would be protected under the 1st amendment.

My buddy's grandmother was a justice of the peace. When civil unions became legal in Vermont, she said that they violated her religious beliefs but because she wasn't an ordained minister, the 1st amendment did not protect her. someone acting as a pastor or priest represents their religion. They could not be forced to perform a marriage because it would violate their religious beliefs and right to practice religion as they see fit. They could not be forced to perform even a civil ceremony because depending on the religion, the marriage is consecrated by God. For those denominations which consider marriage a sacrament, it was even clearer. The sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church is a covenant between the couple and God.