This website has staked out what we believe to be solid ideological ground with regard to government intervention in the religious institution of marriage.
As far as we’re concerned, government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage … banning or sanctioning, gay or straight. Furthermore, we believe government has no right to force private sector companies to provide goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation (although businesses which discriminate for any reason won’t be in business for long).
Having said that, homosexual couples have an unambiguous right to equal protection under the law – meaning they cannot (and should not) be deprived of any benefit made available to heterosexual couples.
But the decision on whether to marry gay couples must always be left to individual congregations. Government must never be permitted to compel congregations to start – or stop – performing gay marriages once its members have spoken on the issue.
That is a flagrant violation of religious freedom.
Accordingly, we view with disdain the emerging belief that churches can be sued for refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies – which has prompted thousands of congregations across the country to change their constitutions in an effort to shield them from such actions.
This is ridiculous: Churches should never be subjected to legal action for refusing to perform gay marriages – just as they should never be subjected to legal action for performing gay marriages.
Seriously … what part of ‘government should stay the hell out of this’ does America not understand?
31 comments
“Government must never be permitted to compel congregations to start – or stop – performing gay marriages once its members have spoken on the issue.”
Where is government compelling congregations to perform gay marriages?
They’re not. At least not in the U.S. The anti-gay Christian industry has never lost anything. They’re naive wimps, unfit to exist without material compensations.
Yeah you’ve been watching too much Fox News. See also: Straw Man Fallacy.
Fuck you, Jack! Name one of your left liberal outlets (there are around 7) that isnt bias. At least FOX gives both sides of the story. I sugguest you pull your head out of your ass, stop drinking the kool-aid and watch FOX. You might learn something.
So, you’re not mad that the “left liberal outlets” are biased, you’re just mad that they aren’t biased in the same direction?
Cable news is a racket, if you’re watching it at all, you are ingesting a very narrow window of news that is almost assuredly biased in some way.
Fuck you, bigot!
There is a reason they call it Faux News. Its not news. You will get a heck of a lot more real news watching John Steward or Stephen Colbert than you will watching the Faux News Channel.
Fits, does this mean that government shouldn’t be giving out benefits to married people, tax or otherwise?
Government creates and enforces laws pertaining to marriage, therefore government’s role in marriage is pretty solid. The only way you can change that is to change who creates and/or enforces the law.
I think it is kind of funny that FITS is basically advocating doing a CTRL+F in the law books, searching for “marriage,” and replacing it with “civil union.” It’s especially funny since it is basically nothing more than a politically correct way of saying “marriage” in order to not hurt anyone’s fee-fees.
Marriage still isn’t a religious institution, it is an individual right.
Not if you’re an anti-gay, Christian bigot.
It’s a religious sacrament, at least among us Catholics. But that’s not contradictory to your position. I don’t care if the government recognizes gay marriage or not. My concern is that in the future, the government will take the position that a church that fails to marry two people of the same gender is violating their civil rights.
Religious marriage is a sacrament. Legal marriage is not. Please do not be fooled by this article. There is no emerging belief that the Catholic Church can be sued for refusing to marry gay people, divorced people, or non-Catholics. Just as there is no emerging belief the Catholic Church or any other Church can be sued for refusing to recognize a legal divorce.
The state could not care less whether a church says you are married or divorced.
My suspicion is raised by the government’s change in position on abortion. It used to tolerate our religious opposition to abortion while insisting that people should have access to it. Now they insist that we not only tolerate abortion, but that our Catholic hospitals must provide it. Why would I not think that would be the next step in tolerance of gay marriage, that we will have to marry people or else?
No doctor, Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Muslim, Wiccan; or anything in between, has ever been compelled by the government to perform an abortion. That is simply a fabrication.
Can I have your priest’s # ?
Actually, marriage is a civil contract. It has been, at least in this country, since the founding. Even the Puritans saw it that was and Magistrates performed marriages in early Massachusetts. Religion can “bless” unions but they don’t and shouldn’t have the authority to marry. They don’t deal with all of the OTHER things that arise from marriage like child custody, divorce, taxes etc. Marriage should just be a civil institution and those who have some religion can go get it blessed if that floats their boat.
I agree, but I want to add:
Churches don’t -necessarily- deal with all the other things, such as child custody or divorce, but they can. They can do mediation with the couple, but only if both parties consent. This reinforces the notion that marriage is a civil institution and an individual right.
Good luck attempting to articulate this theory, that doesn’t exist, to the millions of heterosexual couple’s whose marriages are intertwined with the government. “As far as we’re concerned, government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage …” Last time I checked, the worthless churches don’t have anything to offer married couples, and the government grants thousands of benefits to them for being married. The OP is nothing more than an anti-gay, Christian bigot, whose religion is a shallow, empty, angry entity. It’s nothing more than an anti-gay obsession.
Ok. We get it. You hate Christians, this is evident by your multiple posts in a single thread. Everyone else obviously has an obsession. Not you. Everyone else.
My wife and I got married in a restaurant over supper and the “official” that married us was a friend that was also a notary public (the “ceremony” took about a minute). I have long argued that gays should enjoy the same legal rights and protections of marriage that my wife and I enjoy. I even argued this point with some of the Marines and civilians I was working with several years ago, that was a lively discussion and it wasn’t nearly as lopsided as you might think. But I’ll go with Fits on this one, no nongovernmental institution/”official”, such as churches, priests, rabbis, should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays just because they do for heterosexuals, there are plenty of other “officials” available for performing the ceremony.
What are you even talking about?
We would not even be having this discussion if we had a flat tax or a – wait for it – fair tax, where everyone is taxed at the same rate.
#1 Governments are NOT compelling churches to perform marriage ceremonies.
#2 Any church amending its by-laws for this is clearly over reacting and is uninformed.
#3 That beautiful ceremony that many of us are familiar with that takes place in a sanctuary and has a bride and groom, et. al. is a WEDDING CEREMONY not a MARRIAGE. The marriage takes place when the participants SIGN the license in the presence of an OFFICIANT and it is filed with the GOVERNMENT in the courthouse.
Sic, what is all that bullshit about “government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage …”. Did you not see the SC Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Putative Spouse Doctrine? Dude, government is all up in that marriage thing.
Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. For that matter, everyone has the same right to have a party and “say” they are married if they want… And everyone has the same equal right to “shack up” if they so choose.
But nobody has a right to force other people to legally “recognize” anything on the subject other than a marriage contract based on state laws…and only state governments can lay out the terms of that contract.
Want to draw up your own contract? “Marry” two other dudes? Three? Or as many chicks? Fine. Have a contract as to how you’ll treat each other? Fine. But our name’s Paul and that’s between ya’ll. Don’t go to anyone else and demand that they recognize it.
“Accordingly, we view with disdain the emerging belief that churches can be sued for refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies.”
I think this is totally fabricated in Faux News style. There is no such emerging belief. Who has expressed a theory that churches can be sued for refusing to marry anyone? Please cite a case where any court has ever ruled that way. Churches refuse to marry people all the time for any number of reasons. Some Churches won’t marry you if you are divorced. Some will not marry you if don’t promise to rear your children in the faith of their church which makes sense if you are a church. Some Churches will not marry you unless your spouse converts to their denomination or religion. The last two being clear examples of discrimination on the basis of religion; and yet no suits. Marriage by a church has no legal significance unless you have a marriage license. This whole argument is silly.
This article looks as though it was written by a 9th grader. Did someone at Fitsnews wake up from a dream and start writing in stream of consciousness format.
Let’s just make ,WEDDINGS illegal.Save that money for the divorce.Atheists get married,too.
WTF is this article even about Wil?
great question.too much franks hot sauce on his wings or somethin
There’s a great column in Free Times by Kevin Fisher on Sheheen, gay marriage and the upcoming election. Nailed it.
Gays should be allowed to marry…What part of “Misery loves company” don’t you understand?