Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings

[Anomalocaris]

You have it backwards.

Sorry McFly.

George and Martha Washington didn't have a marriage license....why?....because back then you didn't need permission from the state to get married. You just did it(usually in a Church).

Yes, and they drove their buggy without state driver's licenses either, and they could, if they wanted, smoke anything they fancied as well. They just did it. You can do what you the hell you want if you don't expect state to provide services to you to support what you want to do. In a minimalist state that provides no services, you can do what the fuck you want.

Here if the church does not expect a church marriage to receive state services and benefits given to a civil marriage, they can do what the fuck they want. But they want to get state services and benefits for the type of marriage which does not meet state qualifications. This is all the more important because it is and always has been the aggtrandizement strategy of christainity to subvert publically beneficial institution to serve the ends of their religion, and in the end claim credit for creating the institution they subverted from others.

Let's be clear, these moronic ministers are not arguing the world ought to be as if the state provided no services. What they, and you, want is for your religion to freeload off the state's services while subverting the institutions of the state to religious ends.

[Heywood]

Sorry McFly.

George and Martha Washington didn't have a marriage license....why?....because back then you didn't need permission from the state to get married. You just did it(usually in a Church).

Yes, and they drove their buggy without state driver's licenses either, and they could, if they wanted, smoke anything they fancied as well. They just did it. You can do what you the hell you want if you don't expect state to provide services to you to support what you want to do. In a minimalist state that provides no services, you can do what the fuck you want.

Here if the church does not expect a church marriage to receive state services and benefits given to a civil marriage, they can do what the fuck they want. But they want to get state services and benefits for the type of marriage which does not meet state qualifications. This is all the more important because it is and always has been the aggtrandizement strategy of christainity to subvert publically beneficial institution to serve the ends of their religion, and in the end claim credit for creating the institution they subverted from others.

Let's be clear, these moronic ministers are not arguing the world ought to be as if the state provided no services. What they, and you, want is for your religion to freeload off the state's services while subverting the institutions of the state to religious ends.

Chuck, the people who get married in the Church "want the state services"....the Church doesn't benefit from those things...married people do. All you are saying is "If you get married in a church and not before a judge....then you aren't entitled to all the benefits the state has to offer you". You want to punish people for getting married in a Church because you don't like them going to Church.

The state shouldn't care where or who marries or require you to seek permission from it to get married. It should only respect your declaration that you married someone.

[Jenny A]

---

So let me get this straight, is this a religious establishment such as a church? If it is then NO they should not be forced to marry these folks, that is setting a precedent I rather not set here in this country. Now if this is a business entity founded by religious people, then possibly an argument can be made and we should let the courts decide here. I honestly am failing to see the zealous nature behind forcing religious establishments to perform rituals against their will. It is like forcing Satanists to perform traditional communion. So can someone link me to the full story here, because I keep getting separate sides that are 100% bias.

---

Whether they are a business or not is irrelevant. The key factor is whether the want the product of tgeir services to be recognized as being equivalent to those provided by the state.

If it is a religious establishment offering a marriage service whose results has no civil validity, then they can do whatever they want whether they are a business or not.

But if the product of their marriage service is to have civil validity, then that validity mandates whom they must provide the service to (the same as civil marriage) even if there is no business aspects to it or not.

emphasis mine

You position is that if ministers, priests, rabbis, or any other sort of clergy preform marriages with legal validity, that they must marry anyone who has a marriage license? I strongly disagree.

Who can get married for civil (i.e. legal) purposes is regulated entirely by the state government. The legal gateway is the marriage license. The requirements to obtain one vary from state to state, but they include such things as prior blood tests, that the parties not be related to each other, be over a certain age, and often, a residency requirement.

In the United States, marriage ceremonies come in two types, civil and religious. Both are followed by signing a state prepared marriage license which is then filed with the state.

There is no shortage of officials to preform the civil type ceremony, as certain government officials (usually the county clerk) are required to preform them for anyone with a marriage license and various other officials (usually judges) can preform them.

Preforming marriage services (considered a sacrament in many denominations including the Catholics) has been a religious role of clergy for centuries. And for centuries, the clergy has accepted payment individually, rather than through the church for those services. And the clergy has similarly decided for whom to preform such services. Discrimination based upon whether the clergy thought the couple was sufficiently committed to each other, and whether the marriage would comport church law including: whether the couple has been previously divorced; how closely related they are, whether they are a member of the church in good standing, etc. have long been part of the clergy's role This is because marriage is held by most religions to have a religious as well as a civil component.

If there is to be religious freedom at all (and I think there should be religious freedom) how and for whom a religious practitioner preforms a religious ceremony which is what a religious wedding is, should not be regulated by government.

There is also a free speech component. Included in the the First Amendment's right to free speech is the right not to be compelled to speak. This gives students and teachers the right not to say the pledge of allegiance, and drivers the right to tape over the state motto on their auto plates. The right not to preform a ceremony in a situation to performer would consider blasphemous would violate the right not to speak.

The Knapps religious views on the matter of who should be married are ugly. However, they are not views that injure anyone else. Nor frankly, can I imagine anyone wanting to be married by a person who doesn't think they should be married.

Of course we could deprive religious marriage ceremonies of all legal effect. There are countries where legal marriage requires a civil marriage first and any religious ceremony has no legal effect. In those countries the civil ceremony is a short oath followed by signing a marriage certificate. That would, I gather satisfy your objects to the Knapps' establishment as their services would have no legal effect? Yes? But I don't think it would satisfy any gay couple who wanted something other than a civil service.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, and they drove their buggy without state driver's licenses either, and they could, if they wanted, smoke anything they fancied as well. They just did it. You can do what you the hell you want if you don't expect state to provide services to you to support what you want to do. In a minimalist state that provides no services, you can do what the fuck you want.

Here if the church does not expect a church marriage to receive state services and benefits given to a civil marriage, they can do what the fuck they want. But they want to get state services and benefits for the type of marriage which does not meet state qualifications. This is all the more important because it is and always has been the aggtrandizement strategy of christainity to subvert publically beneficial institution to serve the ends of their religion, and in the end claim credit for creating the institution they subverted from others.

Let's be clear, these moronic ministers are not arguing the world ought to be as if the state provided no services. What they, and you, want is for your religion to freeload off the state's services while subverting the institutions of the state to religious ends.

Chuck, the people who get married in the Church "want the state services"....the Church doesn't benefit from those things...married people do. All you are saying is "If you get married in a church and not before a judge....then you aren't entitled to all the benefits the state has to offer you". You want to punish people for getting married in a Church because you don't like them going to Church.

The state shouldn't care where or who marries or require you to seek permission from it to get married. It should only respect your declaration that you married someone.

"Should" is in your opinion. In mine the state has every dutiful obligation, not just right, to clearly know exactly what policy goals it seeks to further by incurring the cost of offering benefits, and requires those claiming state benefits and thus obligating the state to show they have acted in a way that is consistent with furthering those policy goals.

The state should only respect any self declaration of marriage that makes no claims or demands whatsoever upon the state in the sense that the state has nothing to do with it.
But the self declared marriage seeks to avail itself any examptions, benefits, or other items of cost to state, then the state has the duty to verify your declaration of marriage has earned such validaiton as the state had deemed necessary to show the marriage benefits the state's policy goals.

As to the church benefiting, of course it benefits. It gains undeserved legitimacy by making itself an venue through which state benefits can be obtained against the policies interests of the state but for the policy interests of the church, at no cost to the church but at cost to the state. It freeloads off of the resources of the state to subvert the state.

[Jenny A]

For most of Western History marriage was simply a private contract between two families and the state had nothing to do with it. The concept of the state granting you permission to get married by issuing you a license is a relatively recent concept and in my opinion....an immoral one. Marriage is a personal liberty and not some privilege that is granted to people by the state.....or a Church for that matter.

For most of western history the state and the church were essentially the same institution. And marriages have indeed been regulated by the state in numerous places through out history.

You make it sound like the state granted religion the power to marry people which is bull shit.

Not really. The benefits of marriage from a contractual standpoint, i.e. taxes, inheritance, duty to care for, etc. are all state granted rights that have changed over time. By enforcing religious marriages in any of these ways, the state is granting the religion the power to marry civilly. Without the state, marriage is an unenforceable agreement.

Marriage ceremonies were being preformed by religious and recognized by society at large well before the state ever got involved. State recognition of religious marriage ceremonies was not some courtesy as you errantly suggest. It was just a convenient way for the state to take over an aspect of peoples lives they previously had no part of.

Since marriage is a prehistoric institution, I don't know who you could know that.

[Minimalist]

A number of states recognize common-law marriage with no ceremonial horseshit and, this is key, under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution other states recognize common-law marriages which originate in states where they are legal.

For most of human history marriage had nothing the fuck to do with religion at all. It was a business proposition between families and conducted as such.

Yes, eventually religion did figure out that this was a good money-making scheme to get in on and once that realization set in it was full speed ahead.

[Bibliofagus]

The State should not empower institutions that discriminate. That's my view. It's like granting the kkk the right to marry people - and make money off that. It also elevates these people and their views to officiialness. Which is bad.

[Anomalocaris]

The State should not empower institutions that discriminate. That's my view. It's like granting the kkk the right to marry people - and make money off that. It also elevates these people and their views to officiialness. Which is bad.

The state should incur cost to itself to further the interests of parties working against the policy interests of the state.

Everyone like to get rich by robbing others for the seed capital.

---

Of course we could deprive religious marriage ceremonies of all legal effect. There are countries where legal marriage requires a civil marriage first and any religious ceremony has no legal effect. In those countries the civil ceremony is a short oath followed by signing a marriage certificate. That would, I gather satisfy your objects to the Knapps' establishment as their services would have no legal effect? Yes? But I don't think it would satisfy any gay couple who wanted something other than a civil service.

The gay couple has a right to demand, but not a right to force, a church to reform itself. The church is under no oligation to accede to demands so long as the church's conduct does not effect in any way people or institutions that are not voluntarily part of the church. This is my idea of religious freedom. The gay couple can leave the church.

The society at large does not have any obligation to treat any certifications or services provided by the church that does not reform itself to meet contemprary standards for these services as if the these cerfigications or services are equal to others which do meet contemprary standards.

So religious freedom is served by the gay couple not being able to force the church to become wise. Public interest is served by the church being decertified as being wise.

[Chas]

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that this wasn't a church, it was a business open to the public.
And it was a business that offered civil (non-religious) ceremonies.

The point of law that is being invoked is that a business cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

No one is suggesting that churches must allow anyone to marry in their churches. They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

[Minimalist]

They are not businesses and not subject to the same regulation.

Correct.


However the issue of whether or not they should lose their tax-exempt status because of the political lobbying they do is a fair question.