Uncategorized

The Other Side Of “Marriage Equality”

PROTECTING A CONGREGATION’S RIGHT TO SAY “NO” By FITSNEWS || This website has been consistently unapologetic in support of gay rights – including the right of homosexual couples to marry (assuming they can find a church that’s willing to perform the ceremony). We believe government should have no involvement whatsoever on…

PROTECTING A CONGREGATION’S RIGHT TO SAY “NO”

By FITSNEWS || This website has been consistently unapologetic in support of gay rights – including the right of homosexual couples to marry (assuming they can find a church that’s willing to perform the ceremony).

We believe government should have no involvement whatsoever on the question of marriage – be it banning or sanctioning, gay or straight.  That’s because marriage is an institution of the church, not the state.  Which means it should be left up to individual congregations – not politicians or bureaucrats – to decide.  Meanwhile per the Fourteenth Amendment, civil unions must be recognized by government equally – with benefits and privileges protected equally.

Seriously … we’ve written that so many times our carpal tunnel is acting up.

There’s a flip side to our tolerance, though – namely protecting the right of congregations to say “no” to gay marriage.

This is a basic religious freedom, people … no matter what the public opinion polls may say.

Previously, we’ve condemned efforts by leaders in Hawaii to force same sex marriages on churches … and we’re troubled by recent reports out of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho seeking to do the same.

In this resort town located in the Idaho panhandle, two ordained Christian pastors have been told by town officials they must perform same sex marriages – or face fines and possible imprisonment.  The town’s logic?  The recent U.S. Supreme Court “non-ruling” which effectively upheld the unconstitutionality of statewide gay marriage bans.  Oh, and a local ordinance banning “discrimination.”

Sheesh …

This website rarely comes to the defense of sanctimonious Bible thumpers, but in this case they are well within their constitutional rights to reject such marriages.

Gay marriage may be legal (or almost legal) across the country, but that doesn’t mean churches are required to conduct the ceremonies.  Legalizing gay marriage means churches can conduct such ceremonies if they so choose, it does not mean they can be compelled to do so under threat of fine or imprisonment.

Not surprisingly, a federal lawsuit in defense of the pastors in Coeur d’Alene was filed last week by Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” Tedesco said. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

Exactly …

In stamping out one form of unfair discrimination our country cannot usher in another – which sadly appears to be the “next battle” in the fight for so-called marriage equality.

This website will always stand for the equal treatment of homosexuals under the law – and condemn those who would seek to deny them their inalienable rights.  Similarly, we will always stand for the right of churches to perform gay marriages – whether we agree with the practice or not.

But forcing individual congregations to go against their religious teaching and perform marriages against their will?

That’s totalitarianism, people …

Related posts

Uncategorized

FITSNews
Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

85 comments

Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 10:55 am

On gay marriage, no dissenting opinions will be allowed. Those that don’t agree are bigots and must be forced to assimilate.

Reply
Logic fail October 20, 2014 at 11:05 am

“no dissenting opinions will be allowed”

Just like compulsory service.

Reply
Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 11:28 am

Exactly like compulsory service.

Reply
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James October 20, 2014 at 11:53 am

Wait a minute…mental or physical impairment can trump a duty to serve (e.g. Israel).

Jackie, are you saying screw the ADA, no marriage for the disabled?

(yes, I’m playfully extrapolating your point)

Reply
Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm

lol. I was being sarcastic, but I do like your extrapolating it even further.

Logic fail October 20, 2014 at 11:57 am

Glad you admit it.

Reply
mamatiger92 October 20, 2014 at 12:26 pm

if your opinion is discriminatory, then yes… you are a bigot.

Reply
Discrimination is not evil October 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm

Try living your life one day with no discrimination on any opinion.

It’s going to be a rough day for you if you do.

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Ironic that conservatives whine the most about the marketplace of ideas doing what a marketplace does. Society tends to progress and look back on beliefs of the past that were discriminatory bullshit as discriminatory bullshit. In every instance where something wrong was discarded and shunned, there were those who defended that bullshit and were shunned right along with it.

And so it will be with gay marriage. Bans will be struck down, gays will get equal rights, and over time, public opinion will change to accept it. Exactly like interracial marriage.

http://xkcd.com/1431/

Reply
9" October 20, 2014 at 5:26 pm

How do you feel about the ‘black’ problem?

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia October 20, 2014 at 11:06 am

Agreed, Will! I support EQUALITY, NOT superiority. Churches have the right to refuse straight marriages, such as in cases where one or both parties are divorced and this conflicts with the church’s superstit…, er, beliefs on that topic.

If a church does not sanction gay marriage, that is their right and it is nobody’s place, save for their congregation(s) to tell them differently.

I do believe that a certain amount of governmental involvement is a necessary evil with regard to marriage licensing and documentation. I don’t know how this could be done otherwise in today’s world, where there are so many legal issues stemming from one’s status of being married, not married, divorced, etc. To that end, government has no right to deny marriage licenses to gay couples, denying them equal treatment under the law.

Reply
Leave Me Alone October 20, 2014 at 11:16 am

The problem here is the best majority of people are comparing apples (marriage) to oranges (equal protection) . Just as it is not the government’s business to be in the business of marriage, it is not a job of every Tom Dick and Harry to be in my business (ie End of Life decisions, medical decisions, etc)

And here comes the what ifs…. XP

Reply
Leave me Alone 2 October 20, 2014 at 11:20 am

Vast Majority of people

Reply
snickering October 20, 2014 at 11:07 am

These couples absolutely have the right to suffer (marry), just like regular folks who always end up divorced, bitter, alcoholics and poor. I say to those who can exchange, and double their wardrobes–GO FOR IT.

Reply
tomstickler October 20, 2014 at 11:07 am

Molehill, meet Mountain:

Someone, somewhere, whether in Hawaii or Couer d’Alene, can always be counted on to provide an opportunity for Will to beat his favorite dead horse.

Reply
Tunes'n'News October 20, 2014 at 11:11 am

What if you’re not religious? In Will’s World, can you get married?

Reply
Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 11:28 am

(never heard of courthouse marriages)

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia October 20, 2014 at 11:32 am

Aye, but given the way I understand Will’s “no government involvement” stance, those would not exist.

Reply
Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 11:34 am

Probably true. Any notary public can marry someone though, so you don’t even have to go to the courthouse.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia October 20, 2014 at 11:37 am

True, but this process will still involve governmental intervention of sorts. A license must be issued for the marriage and the Notary’s “power” to perform a marriage ceremony comes from the government.

Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 11:40 am

True. I guess Will would favor the creating of private party contracts for marriage without governmental involvement. Not exactly romantic, but I suppose it’d work.

The Colonel October 20, 2014 at 12:27 pm

If gubamint isn’t involved, who enforces the contract when things go awry?

Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 12:31 pm

The way we did them back in the good ole days of the Republic- dueling relatives/friends.

Bill October 20, 2014 at 2:50 pm

So you are a libertarian then?

Keep trying October 20, 2014 at 11:44 am

Notary Publics must be sanctioned by the government.

Reading is fundamental October 20, 2014 at 11:34 am

What part of “We believe government should have no involvement whatsoever on the question of marriage – be it banning or sanctioning, gay or straight. That’s because marriage is an institution of the church, not the state” did you not understand? It’s not like Sic hasn’t posted that same language into fifty-leven posts on here.

Reply
E Norma Scok October 20, 2014 at 1:55 pm

Is this thing with the parentheses your new “thing”? It’s almost as arrogant as starting with any sentence with “methinks”, but with an additional dash of smug.

Reply
Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 2:14 pm

(he typed, smugly believing he had called out someone else’s smugness)

Reply
Smugly or Fugly? October 20, 2014 at 4:44 pm

He attends the Sic Willie school of Smugness.

3rd person smugness is a 200 level class, taught by TBG.

Mr. Chiles is somewhat remedial so he had to start with a 100 level class, “How to use parentheses smugly.”

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein October 21, 2014 at 8:36 pm

…but with an additional dash of smug.

(…and a sprig of condescension)

Reply
TSIB October 20, 2014 at 11:32 am

Clearly not. Will doesn’t seem to have thought this through.

Reply
Repenting in Leisure October 20, 2014 at 11:22 am

Gay people should have the right to be miserable too.

Reply
TSIB October 20, 2014 at 11:28 am

Sounds like the “Hitching Post Chapel” is more of a commercial for profit business than a church, but whatever.

Reply
Bible Thumper October 20, 2014 at 11:29 am

My understanding of the situation in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, the requirement to perform same sex marriages only applies to for profit wedding chapels not tax exempt churches. Never the less, no one should be required to perform any religion ceremony in order to maintain a tax status or practice their profession.
If the government can’t require a business to pray how can the government require someone to perform a wedding?
Catholics don’t have to perform a marriage for a divorcée in spite of laws prohibiting discrimination on the bases of marital status.

Reply
TSIB October 20, 2014 at 11:31 am

PRECISELY.

Reply
catchmysoul7 October 20, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Precisely? Nonsense. This is a for-profit establishment in Coer d’Alene, Idaho we’re talking about. Not a non-profit church. Why are you all running to a profit center’s aim to discriminate? If two “ordained ministers” can get away with discrimination – and let’s face it, Joan Rivers was an ordained minister, anyone can become an ordained minister by taking a simple course off the net – how soon before someone discriminates against YOU? When the next Jewish person stands in line at a for-profit bakery owned by a Christian, and the “Christian” baker says, “The Jews killed Jesus” and refuses to serve the Jewish person…will you support that? When the African American person wanders into a hardware store and some yahoo says that he won’t serve said customer because, after all, the bible supports slavery…will you support that discrimination? And don’t think it won’t happen. What we’re talking about with the for-profit weddings at Coeur d’Alene is not religious freedom – it’s the selective discrimination of gay people.

Reply
TSIB October 20, 2014 at 5:30 pm

You’re right; I misread the comment the first time. I agree with you.

Reply
Bible Thumper October 21, 2014 at 10:12 am

The difference is that a wedding is a religious ceremony unlike baking a cake.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein October 21, 2014 at 8:20 pm

When the next Jewish person stands in line at a for-profit bakery owned by a Christian, and the “Christian” baker says, “The Jews killed Jesus” and refuses to serve the Jewish person…will you support that?

Absolutely.

When the African American person wanders into a hardware store and some yahoo says that he won’t serve said customer because, after all, the bible supports slavery…will you support that discrimination?

If said “yahoo’ owns the store.
Absolutely.

If TBG owns the store and “yahoo” is an employee; “yahoo” would be fired on the spot.

Reply
west_rhino October 21, 2014 at 9:43 am

And I can stand in the garage and claim to be a car…

Reply
Bible Thumper October 21, 2014 at 10:17 am

An ordained minister would not be able to discriminate unless some wishes to marry the car.

Reply
tomstickler October 22, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Now that everybody has had a couple of days to cool down, did anyone notice that this whole uproar was bogus from the git-go”

“Yesterday, city attorney Michael Gridley said in a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys that the city will not prosecute legitimate nonprofit religious corporations, associations and other organizations exercising First Amendment rights. Gridley, who asked that the Hitching Post drop its suit, pointed out that two weeks ago the business took steps to become a nonprofit religious corporation.”

Let that be a lesson not to believe anything the American Family Association bleats without checking it out.

Reply
TSIB October 20, 2014 at 11:30 am

“We believe government should have no involvement whatsoever on the question of marriage – be it banning or sanctioning, gay or straight. That’s because marriage is an institution of the church, not the state.”

Your position is ignorant and untenable. Civil marriage has existed for hundreds of years.

If you really have the courage of your convictions, you and your wife will forgo all the benefits the state offers married people.

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2014 at 12:58 pm

The whole point of “civil unions instead of marriages” is so that bigots don’t have to acknowledge a gay couple as “legally married” since it would hurt their feels.

“Marriage” is not your word, bigots.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein October 21, 2014 at 8:56 pm

Until recently “marriage” wasn’t anyone’s word. It was just a word with a definition.

Reply
Mark October 20, 2014 at 11:34 am

The institution of marriage is older than any existing religion. How can one say it is a creation of “the church”? This is total nonsense. “Government” has been involved in marriage since its inception. The only reason churches are involved in marriage is that for most of Christian history the Church and the government were one.

Marriage began as a way to combine wealth and cement alliances. It was contractual in nature not religious. Most of our marriage laws come from the Roman Empire. That is where the concept of one wife and monogamy arose. While a priest may have been involved in the wedding ceremony in ancient Rome, that was generally only for nobels, and was not necessary under Roman law. The priesthood, was rarely involved in the marriage of commoners, before Christianity became the official Religion of the Empire. Roman marriage was largely contractual in nature.

Reply
Bible Thumper October 20, 2014 at 11:52 am

Most of what you say is accurate except that the government was involved since its inception. In truth marriage was a commercial transaction similar to buying a slave and the woman had little say. Civil marriage in western societies developed because of the decline of church temporal influence to protect both parties and their children.
Marriage was first a family institution. The heads of the couples households had all power in approving the marriage. The bride was never considered the head of any household. The the church became involved and finally the government.

Reply
Mark October 20, 2014 at 12:45 pm

I agree on your characterization as to early marriage in some societies, but I don’t agree in regard to the involvement by government. Governments enforced property rights and contract rights very early in history; including the rights of a man to control his spouse(s) and slaves. While for many societies the role of wife and slave were little different. Societies still looked to government to enforce the rights of the master of the house. It was not a matter of the woman just leaving. She would be arrested and returned to her husband.

This was not however the case with Roman nobility for example. Nobel women in Greece and Rome did have rights. I am sure in other societies as well. in any event the governing authority would have defined those rights.

Reply
west_rhino October 21, 2014 at 9:42 am

So marriage among the Jews in days labeled BC never existed?

Reply
Mark October 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm

If you got that from my post you can’t read. Prior to the Roman Empire the Jews practiced polygamy, as did most of the non-Roman world. Jewish law permitted a man to have multiple wives, and in certain cases required it. This was true even at the time of Christ, but since Palestine was a Roman Province, Roman law discouraged the practice. The concept of one wife for a husband was Greco-Roman, not Jewish.

Of course, priest were involved in marriages in the Jewish faith, but pre-Rome Jews lived in a Theocracy. The priest were part of the government.

Reply
Soul Dancer October 20, 2014 at 11:37 am

Business is business. If you’re in the ‘business’ of ‘marrying people’ – then civil law applies – unless – of course – you enjoy the projections of being a ‘religious organization.’ Registered religious orgs (which also often enjoy tax payer support via their non-profits status), may discriminate – freely – at tax payer’s expense.

Reply
Jackie Chiles October 20, 2014 at 11:38 am

your tears are delicious

Reply
Soul Dancer October 20, 2014 at 11:54 am

In what way Jackie?

Reply
Here We Go Again... October 20, 2014 at 11:50 am

Here we have Will’s tired but hit making click bait so everyone can make the same old bitch.

Reply
mamatiger92 October 20, 2014 at 12:25 pm

no argument from me on this one

Reply
The Self Destruction of USA October 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Violating the Separations of Powers and the Constitution by allowing homosexual marriage under law. It is a RELIGIOUS thing. Not a government one.

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Violating the Separations of Powers

So SCOTUS shouldn’t have been able to strike down interracial marriage bans either?

Hold on, let me grab my popcorn before you reply.

Reply
Barbarossa October 20, 2014 at 12:38 pm

This whole gay rights thing is tracking exactly like the civil rights laws of the 1960s. While I wasn’t around to see those become law, it’s pretty clear that a moral cry for black equality over persistent discrimination led to laws that were riddled with black superiority (affirmative action, quotas, etc). And so it is turning out for gay equality that is morphing into gay superiority (equality laws trumping religion, etc). Thankfully, just as most are able to see through the farce that is black preferences, most will see through the gay preference bullsh!t.

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2014 at 12:56 pm

Being able to do the same thing as everyone else doesn’t mean you’re “superior.”

Keep in mind that states were able to ban interracial marriages until SCOTUS ruled otherwise, and even after that, businesses tried to discriminate against them.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Reply
Barbarossa October 20, 2014 at 1:04 pm

Getting outcome preferences based off of skin color – aka affirmative action – never was, nor is, nor ever will be racial equality. Eliminating religion in the name of equality to give a preference to the secularists within our midst is also not equality.

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2014 at 1:11 pm

Whatever you say, Hal Turner.

Reply
Barbarossa October 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Sorry, my name isn’t Hal.. further, I don’t play the obscure reference game.

Tom October 20, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Don’t you understand Smirks? It is not discriminatory to have a law that black people cannot marry white people so long as we have a law that white people cannot marry black people.

It is discrimination against Christians to say gay people can get married, even though we have a law that says Christians can marry gay people, because there are no gay Christians. Therefore gay people can get gay married and Christians cannot. Now is that clear enough for you?.

9" October 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Stupidity:’Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.’

Reply
cuvinny October 20, 2014 at 1:11 pm

I like that the fucking Daily Caller has a more factual article on this then you. The town wants to force their for profit company “The Hitching Post” perform the weddings, not a church on grounds of their no companies are allowed to discriminate in their town.

Of course you are against no discrimination laws but I haven’t heard anything about making a church perform the ceremony.

Reply
Smirks October 20, 2014 at 1:12 pm

I like that the fucking Daily Caller has a more factual article on this then you.

rofl… SHOTS FIRED!

Reply
SC Political Digest October 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm

We had this story yesterday at SCPSD…

FITS got his ISIS kicked again. I’ve said for a while now if you consider sexual preference a trigger for extra Civil Rights…Churches will be FORCED to perform gay ceremonies.

If marriage is a Civil Right, you cannot reject that request. And you should not be able to reject gays….

Obama is in BIG trouble, and FITS mirrors Obama. If you people have not figured it out yet…this is what happens when you listen to Dumb@$$#$, pontificating as authorties.

Reply
Will's Milkshake October 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm

You sure come ‘a running at the mention of Gay Marriage. Good boy!

Reply
SC Political Digest October 20, 2014 at 3:48 pm

And you sure hate to hear me, because I tell you what your master-FITS does not have the intellect, or the B@!!$ to tell you.

Reply
snickering October 20, 2014 at 6:14 pm

Give him a “Good Doggie Treat”.

Reply
Rocky October 20, 2014 at 5:02 pm

Yesterday, after Mass – sitting in the car with my daughter – I noticed a bumper sticker – of course fadded – that said – You CAN’T be Catholic and Pro-Choice. Now that about sums up some folks views on Gay marriage as well. You can’t be Christian and Pro-Gay. Well wonderful. I don’t recall the portions in Mark or Luke where Jesus says to the throngs coming out to greet him – “Come brothers and sisters, join me and I will introduce you to the kingdom of my father, a kingdom of ever after loving and…….. what? Who let those freaking queers in here. Get out! Get out you gay bastards.!!!” Nope, can’t find that part at all. If two gay people are married in Charleston, and you live in Columbia, what the Hell do you care? Since when are your views more important than someone’s civil liberties.

Reply
Barbarossa October 20, 2014 at 6:26 pm

Jesus though did reiterate the man and woman story of Genesis (2:24) in Matthew 19:5. Thus, it’s pretty much end of story for your quasi-theological argument. Peace!

Reply
Rocky October 20, 2014 at 8:23 pm

I never said Jesus wasn’t against gay marriage, I said I never saw where he was against gay people. And anything outside Mark is a distortion of the chronicals – in my opinion. But the bottom line is – as a Catholic – I think the Pope is on the right track. You want to keep membership up – attacking divorced people, gays and people who are pro-choice – which like ot not are the majority – doesn’t make much sense.

Reply
Tom October 21, 2014 at 3:15 pm

I love Christian hypocrites. Give them something they don’t like and they will scour the bible and come up with off the wall interpretations of verses to justify their position. Yet, let Christ tell them directly they need to do something they do not want to do or he is going to send them to hell, and they are content to ignore it.

Reply
Mr. Friendly October 20, 2014 at 5:36 pm

The picture shows typical lesbos. Fat and/or ugly chicks that can’t get a dick and finally give in to the carpet munching.

Sure, 10% is genetic, but there’s some that have just given up and still need an orgasm now and then.

The bi-sexual ones finally ran into a dick and are now confused.

Reply
Karolyn October 20, 2014 at 5:56 pm

Those two shown in the picture are what the average American woman looks like, and what you have to say is nothing but smut! Why bother entering a conversation when you have nothing to say?

Reply
Route666 October 20, 2014 at 6:21 pm

Dang, if that’s the average American woman, no wonder we have so many gay men and for those that just can’t do that grossness, mail order brides…

Reply
Karolyn October 20, 2014 at 7:16 pm

So shallow…..

Reply
Chiles Copycat October 20, 2014 at 7:45 pm

(Says the overweight lesbo)

Reply
rawhide October 20, 2014 at 8:29 pm

Sure, marriage has been a big institution of religions for eons, but that doesn’t mean that the only basis for it is religious. Society recognizes marriage for a reason, and it isn’t to affirm close friendship. We have an interest in children–the frequent byproduct of natural coital relationships, being raised by two parents.

Reply
IamaChristian October 20, 2014 at 10:42 pm

The Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is an abomination to God and therefore, sinful. God loves all people and is willing to forgive everyone of their sin if they ask with a sincere heart. Embracing the lifestyle by promoting, encouraging, or simply standing by and doing nothing is sinful as well. If in fact, the Pope has embraced homosexuality or is not teaching against it, he is not following what the Bible teaches. Each person has to make a choice and is accountable to God for that choice.

Reply
Mark October 21, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Maybe, but then you will be held accountable for the fact you live in a nice house, drive a nice car and have plenty of food while you do nothing about people starving in Africa and dying from disease. So I would not be so cocky.

See Matthew 25 verses 31-46

Reply
Tom October 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm

Not much of a Christian. He or she might also want to look at Matthew 7:3

Reply
Cooter Brown October 21, 2014 at 7:06 am

If’n da greeks, da romans, the jews, or da christians aint never had no homersexual marriage, then it dont exist.

If’n th’ state wants t’ invent sucha thang, then it iz a state institushun.

This aint no invenshun of th’ church, this is an ficticious institushun forced on da peoples by a bunch ov folks who knows as gud as dis dumb countrie bumpkin what marriage iz and whut it aint.

hEAR MEE GU ON DIS: Da Yankee gobermint in Warshingtun WILL FORCE da churches r’ perform dese “marriages” an’ dat’s a natural fact!

Dis aint ’bout equalitie (thare aint no sucha thing), this is about power, revolushun, and a rejection of tradishun an’ a reel price is gonna be paid by everyone….

Love yer neighbours, yes; pertend that yer gay neighbours is married… caint think of why one should.

Itz an alternative lifestyle– alternative being ket to th’ conceptshun.

Reply
Rebecca October 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm

Thank you so much for writing this! I’ve been saying the same thing forever. Civil union rights protected by government, ALL marriages up to individual churches. Someone else agrees! I could almost cry.

Reply

Leave a Comment