anniebygaslight
Drama Llama
I'd love a cup of tea. #1966
Posts: 7,394
Location: Third Rock from the sun.
Jun 28, 2014 14:08:19 GMT
|
Post by anniebygaslight on Jul 4, 2015 6:26:05 GMT
I don't understand the point. No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to perform ... gay, straight, mixed race, 2nd marriages, whatever. So why the need to separate legal marriage from church ceremony? I mean, if they want to, fine, but why would they? I think some churches are looking for trouble where none exists. No one cares if they don't want to perform same-sex weddings! Seriously?
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Jul 4, 2015 9:57:34 GMT
As of now, but do you think this will last? I see it imploding like the cake baking did. I never see it happening, not in this country where we don't even require religious organizations to be transparent to their membership about their finances. I was just talking to my nephew about this. I was amazed that in his church, the congregation has no input it all into the spending or finances. In our church, a yearly budget is prepared every fall and voted upon by the congregation. This includes everything from salaries to utilities to sheet music. Any purchase over $3000 that is not included in the budget has to be voted upon a congregational meeting. Every month a line item budget is prepared and submitted for audit. Anybody in the congregation can see this at any time.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 4, 2015 10:17:47 GMT
Churches have been marrying same-sex couples for a while before it was legally recognized. Now straight couples get to see what it feels like to get married by the church and not have it recognized by the government. Cool.
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Jul 4, 2015 11:13:19 GMT
This is what we did. I was in the middle of my annulment process and my dad was ill. We got legally joined by a JP then when the annulment was finalized we got married. The two dates are 17 months apart.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 0:50:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 12:10:17 GMT
There has been talk of ending the tax-exempt status of churches and I can see this becoming a slippery slope. It didn't happen when interracial marriage became legal, even though I'm sure there was a bunch of "slippery slope" talk then as well. A church or clergy member can still refuse to marry any couple without discrimination charges, or at least without losing to a discrimination charge. The Bob Jones tax-exemption loss due to their interracial dating ban was leveled at the college itself, but not at the church that owned it. I, for one, am not against church taxation, but again I believe the paranoia that churches and clergy will one day be forced to marry couples they choose not to based on their beliefs is fear-mongering, and largely politically fueled. I think the only reason why churches are concerned about losing their tax-exempt status is because more and more of their clergy are preaching politics at the pulpit, which is against the rules. As far as being forced to perform marriages, I just don't see it happening, but I do see it used as an argument on how nationally recognized gay marriage could harm others.
IRS
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jul 4, 2015 12:37:27 GMT
It didn't happen when interracial marriage became legal, even though I'm sure there was a bunch of "slippery slope" talk then as well. A church or clergy member can still refuse to marry any couple without discrimination charges, or at least without losing to a discrimination charge. The Bob Jones tax-exemption loss due to their interracial dating ban was leveled at the college itself, but not at the church that owned it. I, for one, am not against church taxation, but again I believe the paranoia that churches and clergy will one day be forced to marry couples they choose not to based on their beliefs is fear-mongering, and largely politically fueled. I think the only reason why churches are concerned about losing their tax-exempt status is because more and more of their clergy are preaching politics at the pulpit, which is against the rules. As far as being forced to perform marriages, I just don't see it happening, but I do see it used as an argument on how nationally recognized gay marriage could harm others.
IRS
This was talked about quite a bit after Prop 8 in California passed, particularly focusing on the Mormon church. The church requested from the pulpit that their membership, even those from outside of California, become politically involved in passing Prop 8 through time and monetary donations, which they did (over 20 million dollars donated to the effort from the membership). Many people were understandably angry, particularly after Prop 8 passed, that a church could call for a political movement like that yet still retain its tax-exempt status. The LDS church was eventually fined for not initially accounting for all of its own money it spent on the political effort (over 100K), but still retained its tax-exempt status. So unless any politics other churches are preaching from the pulpit are more egregious than that, I think their tax-exempt status is probably safe. We give religion a lot of wiggle room in this country to preach what they please. Look at Westboro Baptist. I think they'll be the canary in the coal mine if tax-exempt statuses are revoked due to politics and hate-speech from the pulpit (and in the streets).
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 4, 2015 12:53:53 GMT
I don't have a problem with clergy signing a state-issued marriage license as long as non-religious representatives are available to do the same thing. I guess it's not like this in every church, but when we got married as Catholics, it was made very clear to us that the priest was performing two functions - he was officiating at the sacramental marriage and also serving as the state's representative in signing the license. This is why Catholics have not not only get divorced (state) but also have an annulment of the sacrament (church) in order to be eligible for re-marriage in the church.
It never made sense to me that most churches insist that only a religious marriage is valid, but they're perfectly happy to let the state manage ending the marriage.
I don't think there's any way churches will be forced to start performing sacramental marriages for gays if they don't want to. Churches have never been considered places of public accommodation like business are. There is zero precedent for that happening and personally I agree it's a desperation argument for those who want to insist that legalizing gay marriage will affect them somehow. The truth is that even if you live in a town where none of the churches will marry you, it's ridiculously easy for your BFF or cousin or anyone else to go online and get "ordained" to marry you.
|
|
|
Post by scrapqueen01 on Jul 4, 2015 13:11:18 GMT
I think what is bothering many of us is fear of the unknown. Realistically we know pastors and churches are not going to be forced to marry those they don't want to. When a situation like the bakery comes up then I think it gives some a cause for concern kind of like a what if.
|
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
Jun 26, 2014 2:00:21 GMT
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Jul 4, 2015 13:37:34 GMT
I think it is a great idea! lucyg@ I will be very surprised if there is not some kind of legal suit about a church refusing to marry a gay couple. It will not matter to people that many churches or pastors have in the past refused to marry a person who is divorced or one who is not a member of their church. (I know many pastors who will not perform a wedding for someone who has been married before.) As of now, but do you think this will last? I see it imploding like the cake baking did. Well, stittsygirl addressed these questions pretty much exactly how I would have, only she sounds smarter than I do. I do believe the fears over this are overblown. I don't think there's a war on Christianity and I don't see anyone overstepping our first amendment bounds and expecting the government to force churches to marry them. Do you think there's something more extreme about same-sex couples that they would go where inter-racial couples haven't gone? As far as I know and believe, the vast majority of people respect the autonomy of churches, and don't expect them to marry couples who don't meet their standards. And there's no reason to think that such a lawsuit, if it ever did happen, wouldn't lose and lose big. If not get thrown out in the first place for being frivolous. I hope you guys are right. We will definitely have to take the wait and see approach.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 4, 2015 15:52:00 GMT
I don't understand the point. No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to perform ... gay, straight, mixed race, 2nd marriages, whatever. So why the need to separate legal marriage from church ceremony? I mean, if they want to, fine, but why would they? I think some churches are looking for trouble where none exists. No one cares if they don't want to perform same-sex weddings! Seriously? Yes, seriously. It wasn't until 1967 that a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia) legalized inter-racial marriage in all 50 states. Before that, it was illegal in about a third of the states. Even though all couples may be legally wed in all states now, we still do not require churches to perform marriages they object to, whether it's same-sex, different races, non-members, or whatever. I have no idea whether there are actually any churches that refuse to perform mixed-race marriages, but I wouldn't be surprised. We have a vast range of religious traditions in this country. The first amendment to our Constitution requires that we allow many faith-based freedoms to individuals and religious institutions that are not given to businesses (at least, not until the last couple of years) or governmental entities. You may recall that our country was settled by people from your country trying to escape the strictures of the Church of England. Therefore, we bend over backwards to make allowances for personal religious belief. Happy 4th of July.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 4, 2015 16:15:45 GMT
(Continuing the offshoot discussion) Maybe this will help: I know somebody who works for a Catholic church in administration. A new pastor was assigned and he let her go because he wanted a man in the position. She sued the archdiocese and won (and is very successfully working in another parish).
However, she would not be successful if she sued the archdiocese because she wanted to be a priest. There is a fundamental difference between these two grievances.
The ACLU has taken the tack, based on some federal regulations, of suing the United States Conference of Bishops over policies that withhold contraception/abortion access in Catholic hospitals and contraception counseling among refugee groups the Church shelters - but so far, the courts have not agreed.
I would be very, very surprised if a U.S. Court ever upheld a couple's right to demand being married in a denomination that objects to their "suitability," for whatever reason. And I'm also really surpised this fear has gained such traction.
|
|