Not trample on the constitutional rights of religious groups to follow their laws against it? We were given the right to religious freedom, but it seems that if the gvt. votes to allow gay marriages and a church says "no, we won't marry you, it's wrong." that those churches will become targets of lawsuits and possibly treated as criminals. Which holds more power, the 1st ammendment, or a later one? Can a law be written that allows for both? Ideas??
2006-10-30 06:34:50 · 16 answers · asked by BaseballGrrl 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think you have it backwards.
No church is mandated to perform any kind of marriage.
For example, the Supreme Court said in the 60s that it was unconstitutional for a state to ban marriages between races. Many states had such laws, (The case was from Virginia.) But that didn't mean any church HAD to perform such marriages, or could face a lawsuit if it happened.
For exapmle, it would be Unconstitutional for a state to say No Catholic can marry a Jew. But many (not all) Jewish temples won't perform a service unless both the bride and groom are Jewish. And the same is true, in reverse, for amny Catholic churches. These churches can'r be the target of lawsuits because of that.
But if a state refused to allow a Catholic and a Jew to marry, it would be sued.
The point is: there would be no law that gays have to marry, or be married by any given church. But the way it is no, churches that don't believe in gay marriage have ensured that churches that do, and there are some, are NOT allowed to follow their own beliefs. And just as bad, that gay men and women cannot even get married outside of any church.
The only excuse for banning gay marriage is if you think it so bad that no gay should be allowed to marry, even if it has nothing to do with you.
2006-10-30 06:41:50 · answer #1 · answered by C_Bar 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who says you have to be married by a religious group? You can get married at the court house by a Justice of the Peace. A church can turn anyone down for a wedding if they decide to.
There would be no lawsuits. Do you really think that gay marriage is going to threaten the institution of marriage? What about the easy law to get a divorce, and the unfair settlements, and all the children that suffer. This threatens the institution of marriage. So what if two people of the same sex love each other in that way. If they don't bother me or my family. I see no problem at all. And by the way I am a straight male. And Homosexuality, no matter what sex it is, is wrong moraly. But legally? I don't think it is a federal issue. It is a state issue. And by the way can you not see how the GOP has used this as a smoke screen to avoid the real issues of our country?
Our President was sworn in to uphold and protect the Constitution. And what does he do? He wants to change it. That is a job for the Congress with the American people's bessing.
I think leaking the CIA agent's idenity was a bigger issue for national security reasons, than gay marriage. Most people feel like I do. Indifferent.
Most could care one way or another if the truth be known.
Change the Constitution? We have to stop discriminating people for the sexual preference. Only the far right feels this is an issue. But given a chance, they would govern our country with their morals instead of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.
2006-10-30 06:50:14 · answer #2 · answered by DAVID T 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have the right to religious freedom, as long as it does not violate our constitional laws. Example: Some religions say pologamy is right, but our government says it is not. The government outweighs a religion. The churches would have the choice to marry a same sex couple, not be forced to marry them. The first amendment hols more power until one rectifying it comes along; however, The 1st amendment is the very cornerstone of our amendments and it is highly unlikely that any amendment will change it's concepts. I do have homosexual friends, and if they want all the hang-ups of marriage, they deserve the right of that. I believe that everyone should have the say-so over their life partners medical decisions, property, benefits, and 401-k. We are talking about tax paying citizens that do not have the rights of heterosexuals. P.S. I live in the Bible Belt. Many people are just ignorant and afraid that they won't feel better than then.
2006-10-30 06:51:12 · answer #3 · answered by Babydoll 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A church now can refuse to marry any couple for whatever reason they want. This would not change if gay marriage was recognized by the government. There are some churches that will perform the ceremony. A local church here has said that they will not marry anyone because of a state law banning gay marriage.
2006-10-30 06:45:06 · answer #4 · answered by Mutt 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You've kinda got the First Amendment cattiwampus. The separation between Church and State is often misunderstood by people thinking that there can be no limits to how a church can worship, but we now that is in error, as marijuana is illegal in the United States, but is a big factor in the Rastifarian religion. There are also religions where ritual murder/sacrifice is a part of their doctrine.
However, with the gay marriage/civil union standpoint, the church IMO still has the power to say, "We don't allow this in our church," similar to traditional Catholic churches requiring the vows of the litirgy, and not allowing self-written vows (as I understand it). The churches will be allowed to continue to hold to their doctrine.
2006-10-30 06:57:41 · answer #5 · answered by Soldan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what are you talking about, get your facts straight. A church can't be sued for NOT marrying gay people. Gay marriage laws only allow for Gays to be married.
Religious groups are one of the few groups who ARE openly allowed to discriminate. A Church can refuse to hire a Jewish person for any job based solely on the fact that they are Jewish.
Gay marriage laws mean that the Church CAN marry them if they want, but if they do not want to they have to get married at the court house.
2006-10-30 06:52:18 · answer #6 · answered by The Teacher 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one is saying that any church has to marry gay people for gay marriage to be legal. Have you ever heard of civil services? Anyone can go down to their local courthouse and obtain a marriage license, and exchange vows in a ceremony presided over by a judge. No priest or minister needed. This is a marriage that is in every way equal to a marriage presided over by priest/minister, only it is secular. Most atheists would presumably opt for this since it is non-religious (and many people opt for this anyway b/c it is cheaper, quicker, and easier. I know a lot of people who have married in front of a judge). So my question is, since civil services exist, and no "religious interference" is necessary, why aren't gay people allowed to marry? Isn't it a violation of THEIR civil rights to not allow it? It doesn't affect anyone's religious views, or their ability to worship as they chose, (and BTW, many churches DO allow gay marriage whether it's legally sanctified or not) so why would this country want to deny gay people their rights when it doesn't affect anyone else's? You have to wonder what it's REALLY about.
2006-10-31 18:58:04 · answer #7 · answered by wendy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a) who says you have to be married in a church? anybody can get ordained on the internet and that gives them LEGAL ability to marry people, and that can be on a beach, in a yard, on a plane, on a boat, on a train, anywhere.
b) your religious affiliation can be morally against it, but people that don't follow your religious law are not bond by your religious law.
c) from a legal standpoint, marriage is simply a civil union with legal ramifications for taxes, child care, and what happens to SS benefits and other possessions when a spouse dies. Religion has nothing to do with these legal ramifications.
2006-10-30 06:53:29 · answer #8 · answered by Manny 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not ALL churches and clergy persons refuse to marry same sex partners. I don't think it should be a "law" that they have to. Don't get me wrong. I am not anything close to being anti-gay, in fact, I think that everyone is looking for that special someone...if it happens to be the same sex, hey....
FYI - I being a straight white female cannot waltz into the Catholic church and get married. I'm not Catholic. What's the difference between not performing my ceremony or not performing a same sex ceremony?
2006-10-30 06:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by Zelda 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Religious groups don't have "laws" per se, they follow scripture. And scripture can contradict itself.
Bottom line is...gay people are people, first and foremost. And while we may not agree with their sexual orientation, their orientation is many times what "defines" them to society. And that's all society sees...a "gay" man, not just a "man".
Whether you like it or not, they are entitled to rights and protections, just like any other citizen of our society. They are no different than their heterosexual counterparts, they just choose to be with a member of their own sex. SO??
I doubt churches will become targets of lawsuits, they are a powerful symbol in the community.
Nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it say "Thou Shalt Not Be Gay"...
What needs to happen is that people on both sides need to shut their mouths and open their minds.
As for having gay marraiges affect the "institution" of marraige...THAT'S ABSOLUTE CRAP.
Marraige is a covenant between you, your spouse, and your God. It's no one else's business whatsoever.
2006-10-30 06:50:35 · answer #10 · answered by vamedic4 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋