We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Government has no business either sanctioning or banning weddings – gay or straight. Obviously it should grant equal protection to all couples when it comes to sanctioning civil unions, but the institution of marriage is the exclusive purview of individual congregations.
Or at least it should be …
Put another way, if individual churches wish to wed gay couples they should be allowed to do so – free from government threats and intimidation. Similarly if churches wish to deny gay couples the right to marry – they should be allowed to do so as well.
It’s a stunningly simple solution … but we won’t ever see it adopted because a) it involves taking power away from the government and b) it is an unacceptable compromise to extremists on both sides of this “debate.”
Anyway, in Hawaii uber-liberal governor (and former U.S. Representative) Neil Abercrombie is firing a major shot across the bow of religious freedom by inserting language into a bill that would force churches to either perform gay weddings or give up the right to lease their space commercially.
According to Honolulu Civil Beat, Abercrombie wants to remove protections in the bill that would keep churches from facing “fines and civil liability” for refusing to perform gay marriages.
Ridiculous …
This website has aggressively defended gay rights – and will continue to do so. But this effort by Abercrombie to financially penalize churches for exercising their right to oppose gay marriage is highly offensive. It is a provocation – an affront to religious freedom everywhere. It is also why government must stay out of the marriage business altogether … because eventually its leaders start picking sides.
30 comments
The governor’s version also has a provision that says religious organizations don’t have to make their facilities available for a marriage if they don’t operate “primarily as a for-profit business.”
Ah, an important distinction. In other words, no, a church or non-profit religious institution is NOT going to be penalized for refusing to perform gay marriages. Would this not then mean that the only places affected are for-profit institutions that perform (or rent their space out for) marriages? I would think this would apply more for wedding venue businesses or the like.
Of course, you can debate whether the government should be able to do that, but I don’t see how this affects churches. The conversation is similar to that of whether or not businesses should be forced to serve women, or blacks, or Jews/Muslims/Sikhs, etc. Does this bill affect for-profit businesses run by religious owners? Sure, but not churches. Unless it is a for-profit church. (I’m not sure how that would work, but considering Jesus flipped tables at the temple over money changers and the like, I would imagine he wouldn’t be too happy about those.)
[Insert references to major churches covering up various scandals or changing embarrassing doctrines to protect their
profitstithes here.]Dude on the left could be Kathleen Sebelius’s brother.
I’m all for marriage equality, but churches shouldn’t be forced to marry people they don’t want to. Of course, it’s beyond time churches pay taxes too.
Good thing they aren’t, anywhere, ever.
Why aren’t any of these couples good looking? You don’t see two attractive, slim, young female models showing up… you see two flannel shirt wearing Jean Toal looking women. With the men it’s two guys who have carnival side-show freaks turning their heads in disbelief of what just walked past them.
You see what you want to see . . and I guess you think that all heterosexual couples are beautiful people, huh?
Sounds like butch is pissed off.
How about you posting a picture (dentures in please) of you and your spouse and we will all take a look and let you know what we think
https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+bear+couple&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BAJvUvqIL9TI4AOrhoGYAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=777#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=7JnhwBMntF2rIM%3A
It is not the purpose of government, nor of the Constitution, to make things “sacred.” Those who believe that marriage is sacred usually choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Gay couples may or may not be making a religious or moral statement; though most Christian denominations do not recognize such commitment, some do. Regardless, Gay couples simply wish to be legally bound to each other by law. We wish to have all the same privileges of any lifelong couple.
If the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than
a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.
Religion needs to go take a flying fuck along with its followers. Idiots.
Right along with foul-mouthed ignoramuses like you.
naaa, the Christian haters just need to be sent back to Europe. America was colonized and founded so Christians could be free of intrusive government.
— “We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: … the institution of marriage is the exclusive purview of individual congregations.”
You can say it as many times as you like and you’d still be wrong. Marriage is not owned by churches. A completely secular legally recognized civil marriage happens all the time in entirely non-religious venues such as by a justice of the peace or a county clerk. Such a legally recognized status is called — a marriage — and the parties to it are called — married. Get it?
But more importantly, marriage under the law is civil right. It’s not a contract, it’s not an “institution,” it is a civil right. That is the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in a line of over a dozen cases dating back to the 1880s. The fact that marriage is a civil right is long-settled law in America.
I’m sorry that this seems to be a point that sticks in your craw, but marriage is not a matter of religion under American jurisprudence. It is a matter of secular civil law and people have a civil right to marry the person of their choosing. Of course, the state has the power to place some limits on the exercise of that right so long as the limits a state imposes serves a valid state interest — for example the state may have a law forbidding incestuous marriage.
Once upon a time — not that long ago — states limited the civil right of people to choose their marital partner by having laws forbidding Blacks and Whites from marrying. In 1967 all such laws were ruled unconstitutional.
The question we face today, as yet unanswered by the Supreme Court, is whether there is any legitimate state interest served by denying gay people their right to marry solely on account of their sex.
This is an important civil rights question. And, it is a legitimate question. It is NOT a “jihad.”
Damn it, you are trying to inject facts and reasoned analysis into this discussion. How dare you?
Sorry. What was I thinking!
So seriously, please tell me why homosexual marriages serve a more “valid state interest” than brother/sister or cousin/cousin marriage… to me and most Americans they’re both disgusting, though superficially, the latter is more palatable. Point is, don’t preach down the grossness of other types of relationships when homosexuality is equally disgusting. You dig?!
Ah, so you own the world, you get to decide who ought to be allowed to exist in it, and other people’s civil rights are wholly dependent on your subjective feelings of disgust (incest isn’t banned because it’s antisocial, and unethical, it’s banned because you think it’s icky). Please, make these arguments in court to defend state bans on same-sex marriage; you’ll guarantee an even speedier victory for our side!
STFU, you dick… you’re the “world owner” who looks down on other “antisocial”, “unethical”, and “icky” behaviors, such as incest, dog f@cking, and child screwing, when in fact your habit has been – and remains – despicable in the minds of the overwhelming number of Americans. Sure, you may gain marriage in the eyes of a perverted government/court system – and in so doing, open the door to pediaphile relationships, etc. – however, you will never gain the legitimacy of the majority of the human race. And, I mean Never! If you doubt me, I challenge you to start pushing the envelop in advertisement whereby the American public will see lots of homosexual smooching. With all of this enlightenment that you speak of, I’ve not seen any of that. Wonder why?
If you need a license to do it, it’s a privilege, not a right.
Now that President Obama has removed don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allowed gay marriage we’re having to take great care to ensure that gay couples are not assigned to countries where that particular sort of thing isn’t allowed. http://www.stripes.com/news/in-south-korea-sofa-concerns-leave-same-sex-military-spouse-benefits-in-limbo-1.249462
1) It was CONGRESS that eliminated DADT, not President Obama.
2) President Obama has not “allowed gay marriage.” That issue is still up to the states.
3) So there are intricacies from DADT repeal that need to be dealt with. So what. I have every faith and confidence that our American military forces are more than up to the job of figuring it out.
4) You’re welcome.
Yeah, you’re right, the President, who started the whole “repeal DADT thing”, wouldn’t commit himself so he foisted the call off on Congress. Of course the President and the Sec Def were responsible for certifying that the repeal wouldn’t harm the military – not surprisingly, they did.
Personally, I could care less – just pointing out the law of unintended consequences.
Your assuming it was unintended. Read the history books and learn how Sparta was, and how all the great Greek city states fell do to similar choices. Look at Rome and other such Empires.
There seems to be an element in every society civilization that has an innate desire to corrupt and destroy the civilization they exist in.
Please, explain exactly and concretely how gay people brought down the Greek and Roman civilization. Your magical gay corrupting radiation argument doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Hey fuckface! Homosexuality was prevalent and accepted at the BEGINNING of the Roman Empire. The strictures against homosexuality became strongest AFTER Christianity spread through the Roman Empire leading to its end.
Simply put,FITS doesn’t seem to know the difference between a marriage and a wedding.
‘Tax the churches.Tax the F**K out of the churches’. Frank Zappa
It is time America dissolves into one or more nations. The differences in moral’s, ethics, principles and a fundamental view of right vs wrong is so great, that America simply can’t continue as a unified nation.
Using an anti-Muslim dog whistle atop an article about a proposed gay rights law hardly is indicative of a liberal viewpoint.
The LDS Church (Mormons) stopped discriminating against black people when President Carter told them that if they didn’t stop discriminating against black people, they were going to lose their tax exempt status. Why do the writers of the above believe that anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people should not apply to churches that rent their premises to the public? Do the writers of the post believe that gay people will inject indelible germs into the churches?