BTW that Idaho story is from last year, and it's a for-profit wedding chapel, not a church. That changes the math on the issue.
For The Christophobes Here
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
The Hitching Post isn't a church, as far as I can see, but a commercial business. Real churches which decline to perform gay weddings will no doubt prevail under the 1st Amendment; commercial businesses that do the same probably won't, and in my opinion shouldn't.
Brother Jed is there now doing the same thing. But there is also a group that shows up and heckles him. It's quite entertaining.
They heckled Max back in the day too. Lots of self-described Christians would argue with him and the way he was preaching too. I was essentially an atheist back then and I'd just watch for a few minutes between classes or on the way home. It was an entertaining show.
I don't think it'll be that interesting, Doug: the question whether a church can be compelled to perform a ceremony which offends its doctrine is is just too clear for debate.
YEp, he has moved around some but he is back in Indiana. There was an article in the IDS as out him. He's 72!
Buzz, you and I can agree on that, but It would not surprise me if there was a push to overrule the church's right to set its own doctrine in "just this one situation". It would not be unprecedented either, I don't think. I'm thinking of the Mormons and polygamy. Personally, I oppose polygamy, but purely on religious grounds which, I must admit, could be considered shaky. Fact is, however, that at this time the majority of both the religious and secular body of citizenry and law happen to be of the same mind.
I don't know the history very well, but you might. Have there been cases that tried to force polygamy on First Amendment grounds? How did that work out?
If it came down to it, I suppose that a Pastor who did not wish to perform gay weddings (assuming the SC should someday decide that if you do weddings you have to do them in all colors of the rainbow) could give up the authority to perform state-sanctioned weddings, opting instead to do only "God sanctioned" weddings. Such a wedding would have no legal standing and a couple so married would need to get a state sanctioned marriage as well - a Civil ceremony. It would be interesting to see if people would opt for both......
Just thinking out loud on the keyboard.
I don't know the history very well, but you might. Have there been cases that tried to force polygamy on First Amendment grounds? How did that work out?
If it came down to it, I suppose that a Pastor who did not wish to perform gay weddings (assuming the SC should someday decide that if you do weddings you have to do them in all colors of the rainbow) could give up the authority to perform state-sanctioned weddings, opting instead to do only "God sanctioned" weddings. Such a wedding would have no legal standing and a couple so married would need to get a state sanctioned marriage as well - a Civil ceremony. It would be interesting to see if people would opt for both......
Just thinking out loud on the keyboard.
Doug, I do know of churches in the last couple years who have refused interracial weddings. You can Google it. There have been no successful lawsuits. However in at least one case the church voted to change policy. If this is not happening with interracial I am not sure why it would with gay.
That was actually going to be my next question. I would not attend a church that would refuse an inter-racial marriage either on doctrinal grounds or on the conscience of the pastor.
Actually, I am currently without a church, having parted ways with my most recent one a few weeks ago. I'm pretty burnt out on churches, truth be told.
Doug, I have a question for you.
Buzz reminded me that some religious folks are willing to die and kill for their beliefs. Doug, I think I remember you saying some things about yourself which would confirm Buzz's comment.
Doug, I don't consider you to be someone I would describe as "hateful" so my question to you is...Would you fight and kill for your religious beliefs while at the same time loving those with whom you disagree?
From my perspective, those who kill each other on the battlefield for religious or other causes are fighting against friends whom they never met.
Buzz reminded me that some religious folks are willing to die and kill for their beliefs. Doug, I think I remember you saying some things about yourself which would confirm Buzz's comment.
Doug, I don't consider you to be someone I would describe as "hateful" so my question to you is...Would you fight and kill for your religious beliefs while at the same time loving those with whom you disagree?
From my perspective, those who kill each other on the battlefield for religious or other causes are fighting against friends whom they never met.
Doug, I think the polygamy thing is goin to be a bad model for this debate. Although the polygamists MOSTLY continue to lose in court, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's on at least somewhat shaky legal grounds. This is one of those cases where the courts and legislature have colluded to get the result they want, regardless of the law.
That is a many-faceted question hoot, and I doubt I can give a fully consistent answer, but I will do my best.
From a purely religious perspective I would say that a willingness to die for ones faith is admirable, but a willingness to kill for it is deplorable. Having said that, however, I make no claims of pacifism or of being a conscientious objector. I was never drafted. If I thought I was going to be I probably would have tried to enlist in the navy.
I guess that when it comes to the military I view them as a weapon of the state, and not of the church. I split my thinking when it comes to these things, I would fight to defend my wife, son, or grandchildren, but I would not "kill in the name of Jesus", and I think that faith based militias are inherently dangerous.
Does any of that make sense or answer your question? If so, could you explain it to me?
Last edited:
Oh, I think there will be a push, and the faithful will have brought it one themselves, at least in part, by insisting that their right to live their religious convictions in all areas of American life trumps ever other consideration, viz. Mick Huckabee's appalling statement today. Even so, I don't see any conceivable basis on which, consistent with the restrictions of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, government could compel a legitimate church which was doctrinally opposed to gay marriage to perform a gay wedding ceremony.
I don't know a lot about polygamy, except that I know polygamous marriages won't affect me personally any more than gay ones will, but I do know attempts have been made to argue that the right to a multiple marriage is fundamental, and entitled to some constitutional protection, without success. That may just have changed, but if so consummation of that change is likely to be a long long time in coming. A majority of Americans, including (!) young Republicans, were ready for gay marriage; polygamy enjoys no such support.
As to your religious grounds, its not that they could be considered shaky; the court just told you they're of no account at all when weighed against valid equal protection and due process claims. As Mike Huckabee just demonstrated, that's not gonna go down easy with a lot of people.
The culture wars continue.
I watched frat boys heckle Max and religious students debate him. Always interesting, but I never took part, if you'll believe that.
I was much more interested when GAP came through. That was big mess. Max was just a quirky guy, but students were up in arms about GAP.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding some of us, MTIOTF. My point is not that Christians are inherently evil or bigoted, but rather they don't understand that when they elect legislators that legislate their dogma, it sets everyone back. Those of us who don't believe (which is an ever growing number) in the Christian God cannot idly sit by and watch our fellow countrymen be oppressed by these ridiculous dogmatic laws.
I have no hatred for my Christian countrymen. However, I find their lack of understanding of the second and third order effects of their dogma to be pitiful and shameful. There is no excuse for oppression based off of the Bible, just as there is no excuse for jihad based on the Quran. No, I'm not equating jihad and being anti-gay marriage. However, they are both very much on the list entitled Stupid Shit Humanity Does in the Name of Religion.
Do not equate Christian criticism to Christophobia.
I have no hatred for my Christian countrymen. However, I find their lack of understanding of the second and third order effects of their dogma to be pitiful and shameful. There is no excuse for oppression based off of the Bible, just as there is no excuse for jihad based on the Quran. No, I'm not equating jihad and being anti-gay marriage. However, they are both very much on the list entitled Stupid Shit Humanity Does in the Name of Religion.
Do not equate Christian criticism to Christophobia.
As far as loving those with whom I disagree....as a Christian we are called to do exactly that, which is why I know that my life is far from consistent with what I profess to believe.
As I watch the back and forth both here and on Facebook it sickens me that people so easily resort to ridicule, contempt, slander, lies.... none of which foster good discussion. Of course I want to jump into the fray. The big reason I quit moderating here was because I was beginning to enjoy it. You get a horrible sense of power when you can make people that annoy you disappear from the board.
Even though I am burnt out on church I want very much to stay involved in one particular outreach that I am involved with - working with kids. They don't qualify as enemies and hate is not an issue. The recent ruling on gay marriage does not release me from any obligation to care for those who need it, and gender identity/sexual orientation are not filters through which the needy must pass before they may be loved and served.
As I watch the back and forth both here and on Facebook it sickens me that people so easily resort to ridicule, contempt, slander, lies.... none of which foster good discussion. Of course I want to jump into the fray. The big reason I quit moderating here was because I was beginning to enjoy it. You get a horrible sense of power when you can make people that annoy you disappear from the board.
Even though I am burnt out on church I want very much to stay involved in one particular outreach that I am involved with - working with kids. They don't qualify as enemies and hate is not an issue. The recent ruling on gay marriage does not release me from any obligation to care for those who need it, and gender identity/sexual orientation are not filters through which the needy must pass before they may be loved and served.
Sorry. Genocide Awareness Project. They are the ones that blow up pictures of aborted fetuses and display them next to holocaust photos.
Never heard of them. As I'm sure you know by now, I'm not hard core antiabortion. I've evolved from the hard core left position of essentially abortion on demand I held in my atheist and Democrat days to a centrist position. I'm OK with first term abortions and believe in reasonable restrictions after that. I'm against late term abortions with very rare exceptions. Frankly, aborting babies in the third trimester is barbaric (again with rare exceptions) and I'm opposed to them.
I think abortion is immoral but recognize that the morning after pill and a late term abortion are not the same thing and still think they should be legal. Most liberals will get mad at me if we talk abortion. I'll leave it at that.
You don't think some conservatives get mad at me for my positions on some issues? Got to deal with it.
I'm sure. There are very few people I respect more than politically active folks that disagree with their own party on key issues. It's one reason I love Jon Huntsman so much.
I disagree with my party on several issues at the moment. I think there is way too much emphasis on many I don't agree with. However, I still disagree more with Democrats at the same time to consider switching back to them. If I abandon the GOP it will to be to go independent, not that it matters, unlike many here I've actually voted for members of both parties in all but s couple elections since I could vote. Yet, I'm considered a far right winger by most here.
U
I'm considered a radical leftist here and I've voted for members of both parties in most recent elections. The evolution of the GOP has pushed me more democrat as of late, but I never shut the door.I disagree with my party on several issues at the moment. I think there is way too much emphasis on many I don't agree with. However, I still disagree more with Democrats at the same time to consider switching back to them. If I abandon the GOP it will to be to go independent, not that it matters, unlike many here I've actually voted for members of both parties in all but s couple elections since I could vote. Yet, I'm considered a far right winger by most here.
I don't consider you a radical leftist. I do think you are a partisan Dem, but I've been a partisan Pub for about 20 years myself.
Problem is that because you're a Dem and I'm a Pub most people assume we agree with the most far left and far right, respectively, positions of our parties. Sometimes they're right, but sometimes they're wrong. Often I don't say I agree just because, in my case, the far left posters here are so obnoxious about it that I just won't say I agree with their fundamental position on a certain issue. I have a problem with disrespectful posters.
Last edited:
I don't consider you far right either. There's 3 posters that post regularly that I do and a few more that are mainly hit and run.I disagree with my party on several issues at the moment. I think there is way too much emphasis on many I don't agree with. However, I still disagree more with Democrats at the same time to consider switching back to them. If I abandon the GOP it will to be to go independent, not that it matters, unlike many here I've actually voted for members of both parties in all but s couple elections since I could vote. Yet, I'm considered a far right winger by most here.
The disrespectful posters are the main reason I refuse to post here much, there is very little chance for a real discussion when someone sees the persons name and totally ignores the message. I have much better things to do with my time than listen to one or two internet know it alls tell everybody how smart they are and that anybody who doesn't agree with that is nothing more than a drive by dumbass.
Last edited:
I don't disagree - but according to the folks who feel they own this board, you're just another stupid bigot who believes in fairy tales.
Doug:
Are Catholic priests required to marry individuals who are not members of the Catholic faith? My understanding is that they cannot/will not conduct marriage services outside of the church. If that is true and allowed, why would any religious leader be forced to perform a marriage service?
I have attended weddings where both a priest and a Protestant pastor presided. Don't know if that counts as "conducting a marriage outside the church."
The head priest at the Louisville Cathedral was interviewed last night on 'lectric TC and said they would not conduct same sex marriage there, but that all folks were otherwise welcome. Same church was a leader in fighting AIDS in this community and in providing "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants. Etc.
I don't consider you a far right-winger, Aloha; you strike me as pretty much the kind of Pub with whom I worked frequently and productively back when I was active in Pub politics. I didn't agree with them on everything, but we agreed on enough important stuff, within normal engineering tolerances, to work together.I disagree with my party on several issues at the moment. I think there is way too much emphasis on many I don't agree with. However, I still disagree more with Democrats at the same time to consider switching back to them. If I abandon the GOP it will to be to go independent, not that it matters, unlike many here I've actually voted for members of both parties in all but s couple elections since I could vote. Yet, I'm considered a far right winger by most here.
Most of the time I don't even recognize the current GOP.
For a silly little man who believes in Bronze Age fairy tales, he done just fine.
I am a United Methodist. Our associate pastor didn't waste any time changing her Facebook profile picture to the ugly rainbow version so many are using. I am sure our lead pastor will share the same view as she does. Our church is very conservative and I don't sense there will be an issue with a change. We have several gay members. It doesn't matter what others do as long as they respect the vows and that marriage be entered into believing it is for life.
I would have agreed with you that my black friends had taken a similar stand on the issue in the past. I have noticed a change in the last few years. I received a post today from a friend with a father that is a pastor at an AME church. The message was quite different than I had expected from him.
Similar threads
