Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

So, are we going to bring back the "whites only" marriages too? Damn those pesky other races wanting to get married in our places of worship! Not to mention when they defile our pure white women!

Words have meaning or they don't. Language changes over time or it doesn't. If you're using words from a living language, you have to accept the modern usage and definition, not to mention local usage to an extent (insert UK word for flashlight). If you want word to be inviolate and "holy", use the original word in your religious document of choice. Hey, many Catholics learn a fair bit of Latin and/or Greek, why can't those Baptists learn some Greek and Aramaic? Nobody's abusing a holy language here so if you want the word used for your particular civil arrangement to mean something, in a religious context, use the Aramaic word provided in the Bible.

Personally, I think that if people want to try and live literally by an ancient document, they should actually read it. I mean, I don't see too many people advocating for forcing a raped person to marry their attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or forcing someone to marry his brother's widow, or passing laws making interracial marriages illegal (Ezra 10:2-11)....but I'm all for fundamentalists following Jesus' recommendations in Mathew 19:12 and castrating themselves to live a life of celibacy....or was he not being literal there?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

So, are we going to bring back the "whites only" marriages too? Damn those pesky other races wanting to get married in our places of worship! Not to mention when they defile our pure white women!

If you had a whites only denomination yes, or black only, or asian only for that matter.
We already have this, without complaint: Judaism is a racial group as well as a religious ones, and some types of orthodox Jew insist on only marrying pure blood Jews. Most forms of Sikhism also has bloodline requirements for marriage.

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling. So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

 Orlanth wrote:
If you had a whites only denomination yes, or black only, or asian only for that matter.

So you are happy for places of worship to descriminate based on colour/race? How about shops and other services? Or is it only the religiously owned businesses which get to practice intolerance?

We already have this, without complaint: Judaism is a racial group as well as a religious ones, and some types of orthodox Jew insist on only marrying pure blood Jews. Most forms of Sikhism also has bloodline requirements for marriage.

Being Jewish has historically been tied to being born of a Jewish mother. I would not suddenly become black just because I joined an African tribal religion; that does not however mean I could not call myself whatever the name of the religious group I joined. Similarly with being a practicing Jew and being of the Jewish race.

I will not comment particularly on orthodox Jews and Sikhism other than to say that Sikhism particularly is tied to significantly different cultural norms than those in Western society. To expect a radically different culture to conform to our own is pretty silly.

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling.

What I am attempting to do is highlight just how absurd your viewpoint is. And I feel doing it quite sucecssfully.

So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

And yet it was highly prevelent within the lifetime of not a few parishioners currently attending churches all over the US, and indeed can still be found in plenty of places of worship even now...

People talk about the evil of Nazism, the evils of Communism, the evil of rampant Capitalism...all of these pale into significance when compared to marriage...

: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Either way a decision go there's going to dismay and out cry from either side. I've a feeling SCOTUS is going to go with a neutral position saying its not the government role in defining the word "Marriage". Maybe citing something like 1st Amendment shenanigans

 Jihadin wrote:

Either way a decision go there's going to dismay and out cry from either side. I've a feeling SCOTUS is going to go with a neutral position saying its not the government role in defining the word "Marriage". Maybe citing something like 1st Amendment shenanigans

I don't know. I think from a practical standpoint it seems unlikely that they would do anything other than uphold same-sex marriages especially after already ruling against the constitutional validity of same-sex bans in a number of districts already. I think if they were going to get rid of same-sex marriage they wouldn't have created a scenario where they legalized it in half the country only to turn around the next year and ban it in the entire country.

It's not unheard of for the SCOTUS to change their mind, but it seems like they were just waiting for enough states to swing to the pro-marriage side and get enough public momentum before making a ruling.

 Orlanth wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

So, are we going to bring back the "whites only" marriages too? Damn those pesky other races wanting to get married in our places of worship! Not to mention when they defile our pure white women!

If you had a whites only denomination yes, or black only, or asian only for that matter.
We already have this, without complaint: Judaism is a racial group as well as a religious ones, and some types of orthodox Jew insist on only marrying pure blood Jews. Most forms of Sikhism also has bloodline requirements for marriage.

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling. So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

The census officially recognizes six ethnic and racial categories: White American, Native American and Alaska Native, Asian American, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and people of two or more races. So no, Judaism is no more or less protected than any other religion in the US.

The only official US question on ethnicity is whether or not a person is of Hispanic origin.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

What I am attempting to do is highlight just how absurd your viewpoint is. And I feel doing it quite sucecssfully.

I disagree with you there.

I'm with Orlanth in saying that "1st Baptist Church of Podunk-ville, middle of nowhere" should be able to deny a wedding ceremony on their grounds, without reprisal from Civil Suits. Having quite a few gay friends who could potentially be affected by this, and knowing them... I honestly have no clue as to WHY they'd want to plan to have their ceremony in a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.


Now, that said, I do NOT think that if a gay couple goes to a preacher and says, "we're having our ceremony at the park, would you officiate it for us?" and he says yes, only to "discover" that the couple were in fact, the 2 dudes or 2 ladies sitting before him and then turn them down after the fact. Especially if the venue chosen is a "public" place, such as a city park, a pub or the courthouse.


The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership, and as such I still think that, in order to "protect" their 1st Amendment rights, we would necessarily need to maintain that protection of not "forcing" them to perform ceremonies which go against their belief systems.

Someone tell me when they do. I need to make popcorn and put my facebook feed and my twitter feed up

Same arguments. Its going to SCOTUS. Either way the wheels will stop going round and round and the bus

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone tell me when they do. I need to make popcorn and put my facebook feed and my twitter feed up

Lol, I've read your comment here 3 times, and I'm still no closer to figuring out what you're on about.... Could you elaborate for dumb guys like me?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership

Why noy? They provide a service, and nominally are able to provide that service to anyone. A car dealership cannot refuse to sell you a car because you are gay, or black, or support the Yankees. A church that X years ago would not marry a white and a black person cannot today refuse to perform the same service, even if it was the same priest doing the officiating and they held the same viewpoint they did X years ago.

in order to "protect" their 1st Amendment rights, we would necessarily need to maintain that protection of not "forcing" them to perform ceremonies which go against their belief systems.

Churches perform a legal service when they marry two people; as a functionary of the state in this activity they should be bound by the same rules as any other person working on behalf of the state. Ie they should not be able to refuse their services because of their own personal beliefs.

If however certain curches/priests want to hand back their state-granted powers to perform marriages and instead perform only non-legally valid "Religious Unions" instead, with a seperate legal marriage having to be conducted by a representative of the state, then I think that would allow them to descriminate against people they don't want to serve as much as they want within the law. This of course may also impact upon their ability to remain tax free institutions, but I am sure that is a case for another topic.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The same way the word 'christian' can or can't be owned i guess. All i know is that when i see the usual arguments about marriage on tv, the religious guy says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman (in the sight of god)". Everyone then goes on to focus on the 'man and woman' part of it, and ignores the 'union' part of it. But as i said, the word seems to have changed (or at least for some people and not others) so it ends up being a ****fight when discussed.

It always seemed to me that marriage was a particular type of union, one related to the christian religion. Thats why the origin of the word is important, before the ~1300s there were no marriages if you were english because the word didn't exist.

edit: typo

In Europe I'm sure you'll find different words for marriage, many which likely go back to heathen time and still being used by christians today. What you're saying implies some kind of balancing. So in English speaking societies, the word "marriage" is a christian invention so they claimed that. But do you think christians in the rest of the world would like to give up their local words for the same thing just because heathens invented all languages and probably alot of words meaning "marriage" still used today in non-heathen contexts?

 Stonebeard wrote:
That's nice, I suppose. Don't see much of the point, though. Seems like it would be just as easy (probably easier, actually) to make one blanket category with all the same rights and benefits, shove it under the 'civil union' designation and call it a day. Religious folks (myself included, I suppose) get to keep 'their' word and everyone gets the same rights and protections. No muss, no fuss.

I can give you the word marriage if every christian in other countries give back the religious heathen words they use.

You want to trade words like this?

I can give you "marriage", but you'd have to give back the word "God", as that is of pagan inheritance. I don't find it likely you find many christians around who're willing to do that.

By the way I'll take the word "holy" as well, thank you very much. Heathens invented that too. You'll find many christians around the world in non-english speaking societies becoming religiously mute if they were to follow this idea.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone tell me when they do. I need to make popcorn and put my facebook feed and my twitter feed up

Lol, I've read your comment here 3 times, and I'm still no closer to figuring out what you're on about.... Could you elaborate for dumb guys like me?

When the decision comes down, my family members will explode as will media personalities like Beck/Limbaugh on twitter. it is endless entertainment.

Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

You would think so. but look at how we are dismantling Roe V. Wade, the fight is far from over.

d-usa wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Look at the timeline: when was america founded? When did the reformation happen?

Irrelevant, but to humor you:

The United States of America was founded in 1787/88, which places the creation of our secular laws a solid 139 years after the end of the reformation.

And one of the big things to come out of the reformation was to leave 'marriage' to the secular authorities.

d-usa wrote:The separation of Church and State, meaning that marriage under the law has had zero relationship to marriage under God since 1787.

You are of course correct. I was thinking of the freedom of religion when i asked that question. Part of america's settling involved people who were escaping religious persecution, and freedom of religion came in to ensure people could practice their beliefs in relative safety. The thing is, while the marriages were sent to the state, the religions (a lot of christian factions mainly) from where they originated were still practicing their religion. Look at the catholic church (the splittee), they tend to be the most hardline against gay marriage.

d-usa wrote:Which has nothing to do with secular laws based by a secular nation and enforced by a secular nation that has a constitutional separation between the secular nation and religions.

It has everything to do with it. They were following religious trends, and attempting to make a nation where people were free to practise their own religions. It can be argued that the secular division was to ensure no one religion could gain dominance over the others.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:You should do the same, keeping in mind how/when the Church really started "Forcing" people to get married within the church AND paying for the "privilege" of doing so..... Most of what I've read points to around your timeline, so the 1300s (really, I've read from around the end of the Crusades to about Bosworth... so 1450s-1480s, depending on locale) is approximately when the common person was beginning to follow the Nobility's "example" and get married by the priest in the church. For the Nobility before then, this was nothing more than a political stunt.

Won't argue that. Look at most modern politics, everything tends to be a political stunt. This stuff tends to stick around though, and if is unpopular enough leads to schisms like the reformation.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:While I am glad this is being looked at in the SC, and I do sincerely hope this goes the right way.... I know in my head that this ain't over. Even once the SC makes this constitutionally legal, there'll be backwards groups out there still fighting and railing against this "evil"

But, frankly, I wish it were over already... Frankly, I'm as tired of hearing about people coming out as gay as I am "straight" people annoucing they're getting married.

Agree here too. The thing is, while i'm a petty word usage watcher, gays really should have the human right to marriage, union, or whatever word it is called (maybe SCOTUS will invent a new word for us?)

agnosto wrote:Words have meaning or they don't. Language changes over time or it doesn't. If you're using words from a living language, you have to accept the modern usage and definition, not to mention local usage to an extent (insert UK word for flashlight). If you want word to be inviolate and "holy", use the original word in your religious document of choice. Hey, many Catholics learn a fair bit of Latin and/or Greek, why can't those Baptists learn some Greek and Aramaic? Nobody's abusing a holy language here so if you want the word used for your particular civil arrangement to mean something, in a religious context, use the Aramaic word provided in the Bible.

Personally, I think that if people want to try and live literally by an ancient document, they should actually read it. I mean, I don't see too many people advocating for forcing a raped person to marry their attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or forcing someone to marry his brother's widow, or passing laws making interracial marriages illegal (Ezra 10:2-11)....but I'm all for fundamentalists following Jesus' recommendations in Mathew 19:12 and castrating themselves to live a life of celibacy....or was he not being literal there?

I'm not defending religion on this one. Merely giving my opinion on one of the hangups of the gay marriage debate.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

Because this sort of thing and religion in general was a big deal when the usa was founded. Doing strange things because they're getting a thumbs up from their deity is a fair part of what religion is about.

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership

Why noy? They provide a service, and nominally are able to provide that service to anyone. A car dealership cannot refuse to sell you a car because you are gay, or black, or support the Yankees. A church that X years ago would not marry a white and a black person cannot today refuse to perform the same service, even if it was the same priest doing the officiating and they held the same viewpoint they did X years ago.

The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

SilverMK2 wrote:

in order to "protect" their 1st Amendment rights, we would necessarily need to maintain that protection of not "forcing" them to perform ceremonies which go against their belief systems.

Churches perform a legal service when they marry two people; as a functionary of the state in this activity they should be bound by the same rules as any other person working on behalf of the state. Ie they should not be able to refuse their services because of their own personal beliefs.

If however certain curches/priests want to hand back their state-granted powers to perform marriages and instead perform only non-legally valid "Religious Unions" instead, with a seperate legal marriage having to be conducted by a representative of the state, then I think that would allow them to descriminate against people they don't want to serve as much as they want within the law. This of course may also impact upon their ability to remain tax free institutions, but I am sure that is a case for another topic.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying here, it's just that there are other sides to the argument and this is where i think understanding and history is important.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

The problem here is that apparently their religion also says quite a few things which are against the law to put into practice, such as apparently having quite strong views about interracial marriage at one point. And yet now, strangely, the vast majority of religious groups now think their god(s) are fine with it. Kind of like how Mormans had a "revelation" when they were going to get into trouble with the government over the whole race issue... strange how deities work!

I don't see human sacrifice coming back and being protected by the 1st amendment any time soon either, despite being quite a big part of a number of religions over the years...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

The problem here is that apparently their religion also says quite a few things which are against the law to put into practice, such as apparently having quite strong views about interracial marriage at one point. And yet now, strangely, the vast majority of religious groups now think their god(s) are fine with it. Kind of like how Mormans had a "revelation" when they were going to get into trouble with the government over the whole race issue... strange how deities work!

I don't see human sacrifice coming back and being protected by the 1st amendment any time soon either, despite being quite a big part of a number of religions over the years...

Hey... you stole my Mormon example!!! (seriously... if you look at most religion threads on Dakka... I usually trot out the LDS nut jobs as Exhibit 1)


But... More to what you're talking about.... MOST religious organizations, especially those that profess to be Christian in nature can skirt, or get around the interracial issue in a couple ways. The first, and usually most successful one, is they have a "class" that you MUST attend, and complete and be certified by the church minister who gives the classes before you can use the church and it's official to get married. Often times, these classes are 6 months to a year long, and quite a few people get a month or two in and say, "feth it" we're going to the courthouse or something similar.... Really, from the notes/handouts I've cleaned up after those classes, it's "religious doctrination 101" and so most inter-racial couples would feel extremely uncomfortable in there.

The second way, is usually they make people who appear to be an inter-racial couple/family very uncomfortable and unwelcome until they finally leave the church.

Also, just as hate speech is perfectly legal in the US, using your religion as a platform for "hate" (whether it's actually hate or not) is protected as well.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

The problem here is that apparently their religion also says quite a few things which are against the law to put into practice, such as apparently having quite strong views about interracial marriage at one point. And yet now, strangely, the vast majority of religious groups now think their god(s) are fine with it. Kind of like how Mormans had a "revelation" when they were going to get into trouble with the government over the whole race issue... strange how deities work!

I don't see human sacrifice coming back and being protected by the 1st amendment any time soon either, despite being quite a big part of a number of religions over the years...

Hey... you stole my Mormon example!!! (seriously... if you look at most religion threads on Dakka... I usually trot out the LDS nut jobs as Exhibit 1)


But... More to what you're talking about.... MOST religious organizations, especially those that profess to be Christian in nature can skirt, or get around the interracial issue in a couple ways. The first, and usually most successful one, is they have a "class" that you MUST attend, and complete and be certified by the church minister who gives the classes before you can use the church and it's official to get married. Often times, these classes are 6 months to a year long, and quite a few people get a month or two in and say, "feth it" we're going to the courthouse or something similar.... Really, from the notes/handouts I've cleaned up after those classes, it's "religious doctrination 101" and so most inter-racial couples would feel extremely uncomfortable in there.

The second way, is usually they make people who appear to be an inter-racial couple/family very uncomfortable and unwelcome until they finally leave the church.

Also, just as hate speech is perfectly legal in the US, using your religion as a platform for "hate" (whether it's actually hate or not) is protected as well.

I don't disagree with either of you.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

It won't end here. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, lawmakers will simply try to find new ways to get around the decision in order to appease their voters. Gotta keep that campaign money rolling in by appealing to the fears of your more extreme voters. Gotta keep the talking heads on TV and radio something to rail against in order to motivate the party's base. And on and on it will go.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

You would think so. but look at how we are dismantling Roe V. Wade, the fight is far from over.

How are we dismantling Roe v. Wade? I'm pretty sure abortion is still legal and probably always will be.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It won't end here. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, lawmakers will simply try to find new ways to get around the decision in order to appease their voters. Gotta keep that campaign money rolling in by appealing to the fears of your more extreme voters. Gotta keep the talking heads on TV and radio something to rail against in order to motivate the party's base. And on and on it will go.

They don't even have to get around the decision successfully, they just have to make a big show of fighting back and convince their supporters that they hate all the same people Jesus hates. In fact, somehow winning the fight would be the worst possible outcome, since they would lose this easy source of votes and have to come up with another way to get the bigots to vote against their own best economic interests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
How are we dismantling Roe v. Wade? I'm pretty sure abortion is still legal and probably always will be.

It's legal, but conservatives keep trying (and sometimes succeeding) to impose more and more restrictions that exist for the sole purpose of making abortions harder to get. Mandatory waiting periods, extra licensing requirements for the doctors, etc. The end goal is to make it so that abortion might technically be legal, but it's so hard to get one that most people give up and have the baby. Needless to say this will have a disproportionate effect on poor people while good middle-class white Christians can easily jump through all the hoops, but that's considered a feature, not a bug.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It won't end here. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, lawmakers will simply try to find new ways to get around the decision in order to appease their voters. Gotta keep that campaign money rolling in by appealing to the fears of your more extreme voters. Gotta keep the talking heads on TV and radio something to rail against in order to motivate the party's base. And on and on it will go.

They don't even have to get around the decision successfully, they just have to make a big show of fighting back and convince their supporters that they hate all the same people Jesus hates. In fact, somehow winning the fight would be the worst possible outcome, since they would lose this easy source of votes and have to come up with another way to get the bigots to vote against their own best economic interests.

There are a lot of reasons other than bigotry for people to vote against their own best economic interest.

 Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of reasons other than bigotry for people to vote against their own best economic interest.

Yes, but bigotry is a consistent and effective one.

Isn't is sad really that in all moral fights the US has had, it's always the courts that are need to tell those who claim morality is absolute that they're wrong again.

But it's nice to see the US finally getting dragged kicking and screaming towards the equality they say they already have.

Marriage is just a word, it's not a religious word. Why don't christians have a issue with me, an atheist who married another atheist using the word "marriage" We're legally married, by a justice of the peace, no religions were necessary for us to get married or to call it a marriage.

and the required what is a christian marriage according to the bible.

I used to be in the "don't make pastors/churches marry gay folks" camp (and I will admit that I voted FOR the gay-marriage ban in Oklahoma a decade ago), but my position has evolved from that. I'm just going to share my current viewpoint (again as an evangelical Christian) knowing that there will be people that won't agree with it. I'm not saying that my viewpoint is the right one, I'm not even saying that it makes sense (I'm not even sure if it does), just throwing it out there for transparency:

1) Like I said before, to me there are separate forms of "marriages". I basically have two marriages: One is the secular marriage licensed and recognized by the state. These laws give me secular benefits like tax breaks, joint ownership of stuff, next-of-kin stuff if either one of us is sick, etc etc etc. The other is my spiritual marriage which is between me, her, and God. Secular marriage laws don't affect my covenant, and my spiritual marriage has no effect on marriage laws. When we were married we had a pastor who officiated over both forms of marriage at once. He fulfilled the function of a state sanctioned officiant who performed our secular ceremony, and he was a clergy member who performed our spiritual ceremony. But my guess is that a lot of people won't see our modern marriages as two separate forms of marriage coexisting.

2) Churches are basically private clubs. They are not open and public buildings, they are not businesses, in respect to the law I would think that they are similar to the Boy Scout case. Non-members don't really have any rights to have access or events hosted at a private club. A business that serves everyone is different than a private club that only serves private members. So I still think that a church shouldn't be required to host a civil ceremony for non-members.

3) A pastor/priest/clergy/whatever has a dual role. Currently he is a religious authority figure with the authority (given to him by members willing to submit to it, so no authority over people who don't follow that faith) to officiate over the religious ceremony of marriage (which are not a legally binding thing). He is also an agent of a secular state with the secular authority to preside over secular marriages (which are legally binding). And that double status is really where I have changed my stance and where things get complicated for me.

3.1) Religious clergy: I think from a religious standpoint a religious authority figure shouldn't have to preside over anything that goes against his/her religion. A pastor wanting to hold a religious ceremony at the church should not be required to open that building or hold that ceremony for people who are not adhering to the beliefs of that religion.

3.2) Agent of the State: As an agent of the state religion is a non-factor and a religious authority acting as an Agent of the State is required to perform the state sanctioned service for anyone and perform a secular marriage ceremony for anyone that legally qualifies to be married. A clergy that is also an Agent of the State shouldn't have to perform a religious ceremony at his church, but he should still be required to perform a civil ceremony at a secular location.

4) If a clergy doesn't want to marry people that go against his religion, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform civil marriages for anyone. Without a license to officiate a pastor could still perform non-legally binding religious ceremonies at a church though.

So basically I think we would end up with three different options for being the officiant at a wedding:

A) Purely secular Agent of the State: Officiate over legal secular marriages for anyone.
B) Religious Clergy and Agent of the State: Able to officiate over select secular and spiritual marriages at a church, but required to officiate over secular marriages outside of church for anyone.
C) Purely religious Clergy: Able to officiate over spiritual marriages at a church only.

Like I said. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or that it makes sense. That's just where I am at in my head as my stance continues to evole.

 d-usa wrote:
2) Churches are basically private clubs. They are not open and public buildings, they are not businesses, in respect to the law I would think that they are similar to the Boy Scout case. Non-members don't really have any rights to have access or events hosted at a private club. A business that serves everyone is different than a private club that only serves private members. So I still think that a church shouldn't be required to host a civil ceremony for non-members.

I agree that this is true in some cases, but I don't think it should be taken for granted. Some churches act as private clubs with a close community and aren't really open to non-members, but some are open to anyone who walks through the door. Same thing I imagine with wedding ceremonies: if the church only does them for people who regularly attend that church and are part of the community then they're acting as a private club, if they do them for any random person that comes in and asks to rent the church then they're acting as a business and need to follow the same rules as businesses.

(I don't know what the ratio of "clubs" to "businesses" is, but I remember this came up in the past with a church that wanted to refuse service to gay couples but was operating a for-profit wedding business on church property.)

3.1) Religious clergy: I think from a religious standpoint a religious authority figure shouldn't have to preside over anything that goes against his/her religion. A pastor wanting to hold a religious ceremony at the church should not be required to open that building or hold that ceremony for people who are not adhering to the beliefs of that religion.

And I think the same is true here. If the religious official is acting as part of a private club/community then yes, they should have the right to refuse to act against their beliefs (as long as they're still willing to sign the paperwork in their role as a representative of the government). If they're acting as a business and performing wedding services for the public then they should have the same obligations as any other business.