"Church, marry gays or lose the right to do marriages"

[Brian37]

Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.

[Colanth]

Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.

You just need someone empowered to accept oaths.  Any ordained clergyperson is so empowered.

[Gerard]

Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.

You just need someone empowered to accept oaths.  Any ordained clergyperson is so empowered.

So a clergyman can (in the US) marry people when he performs not just the rite of his church, but the administrative duties required by law as well? That's...... remarkable!

Gerard

[AxisMundi]

One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago, before that we just told them to do fuck themself, these days they could technically refuse - though they are still tied to the government in many ways. It should also be added that the Socialist Left Party that's pushing this only have about 5% of the vote, with the Labour Party being the main party in the coalition.

A poll done shows that 26% of the population is for the motion, while 74% is against it, so I doubt this will happen. But I figured you guys, particularly those of you down in Christian America would find news like this amusing.

What do you guys think? Is it right to stop discriminatory organizations (that recieves support from the government!) from practicing hatred, or does freedom of religion top that?

Here in the Netherlands all legal marriages are done by a secular registries office of the municipality. After that, a church ceremony can follow. It has no status under the law however. We never had a state church since we became a Kingdom in 1815. Belgium has the same laws. I think that is the best situation imaginable. Churches can do what they like, independent of the state. It is of no consequence outside the private sphere here. A church cannot legally perform marriages in this country at all. A church marriage on it's own is not a legal marriage at all (and in Belgium even illegal conduct). I wonder how that is in the USA....

Gerard

Despite the efforts of our theodemocratic crowd to lay claim to marriage, marriage is a legal institution here in the US that some people prefer to enact under the auspices of a religious wedding ceremony.

Marriages are legal when the ceremony, either religious or nonreligious, is conducted by a marriage officiate recognized by the State.

My former wife of 20 plus years and I were married by a Justice, and no mention of anyone's god was made. We wanted a ceremony more in line with our religious beliefs, but "pagan" clergy were not recognized by the State back then. So we did the legal thing, and then had a separate religious ceremony later.

BTW, Gerard, when you talk to "Christian America" you are talking to a minority of Americans.  

[Colanth]

So a clergyman can (in the US) marry people when he performs not just the rite of his church, but the administrative duties required by law as well?

Yes.  In New York, the town clerk can also.  (That's who married my wife and me.)  So can the mayor of most towns and cities.  (That's who was supposed to marry my wife and me.)

That's...... remarkable!

To us it's just normal.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't believe churches should receive government stipends as happens in Europe.  But I also don't believe that they should be forced to perform a ceremony.

Nobody should be forced to do business.  There are stories in the US about bakers and the like being sued for not providing services for gay marriages.  Absurd.

[AxisMundi]

Actually they have never had the "right". Churches are NOT required for a wedding neither is a holy person. You can get married at the justice of the piece. The only thing a holy person does, is sign the paper as a witness. You don't nor have you ever been required by law to have a holy person sign the marriage license.

You just need someone empowered to accept oaths.  Any ordained clergyperson is so empowered.

IF they are listed among a State's marriage officiants.

[AxisMundi]

I don't believe churches should receive government stipends as happens in Europe.  But I also don't believe that they should be forced to perform a ceremony.

Nobody should be forced to do business.  There are stories in the US about bakers and the like being sued for not providing services for gay marriages.  Absurd.

We have the idea of "protected classes" here, that are linked to our Constitutional Rights.

These protected classes include age, religion, disabilities, race, ethnic background, etc. And while not yet at a federal level, many municipalities do include sexual orientation. These are classes of people that have suffered some form of unjustified bias, discrimination, etc. in the past.

If an establishment's main purpose is related to religion, such as a church, they may discriminate on several levels if it is directly related tot heir religion. They cannot be made to conduct a Hindu marriage ceremony for example. And they may also reserve the right to refuse to conduct wedding ceremonies for gay couples, as homosexuality is, apparently, against their religion.

In areas where sexual orientation is a protected class (soon to be the entire country, I hope) a baker may not discriminate against a gay couple any more than a white baker may discriminate against a black couple due to their race.

[Sal1981]

Marriage, culturally, is just the recognition that people live together. Don't need church or anything else for that, other than some feely ceremonial thing.
Only reason is for legalities really, like taxation and in the event they go separate ways (who has the right to what).

[hillbillyatheist]

I take the position that a church should in no way be sanctioned, funded or anything else by the State. neither should they be exempted from taxation, except to the extent they do charity for the poor and such.

but neither do I think the State has the right to impose upon that church laws that force them to do things which violates their faith.
Exceptions apply, of course, such as when what they do causes harm to unwilling participants such as denying a kid access to a doctor.

not conducting a gay ceremony doesn't apply. the gays can either marry in another church that is okay with it, or just go to a judge, or whatever. Its sad that many in this country don't realize it, but separation of church and state isn't just about protecting atheists and other religious minorities. its about protecting the christian majority too.

[WitchSabrina]

Marriage is both civil and religious, to most Americans, but the religious component is optional.  Because of that, I don't think churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to marry.

yeah.........we wouldn't want anyone at a church to be hypocritical.   :shock:
LOL

but...actually I agree with you.  Just like you can't pass laws to make people stop being assholes either. So......yanno

[GurrenLagann]

I think churches are regularly bigoted and need some ass whopping by the people, but by the state?  I thoroughly disagree!  The church should not be "legally" forced to do marriages that they are opposed to.  Church and state should not overlap... even if it benefits society.

Besides, why would any gay couple WANT to get married in front of a bunch of people that think that they are "evil sinners"?

Well, that's an orthodox Christian belief about all people, gay or not. ;)

[FrankDK]

If I remember correctly from a German friend's wedding, in Germany the state does civil unions, and church (or church-like organizations) do weddings, but the latter are completely optional.  The wedding adds no benefit to those conferred by the civil union.

That makes more sense to me.  The state shouldn't be involved in weddings, which are religious ceremonies.

Same sex couples could then enjoy the same benefits as opposite sex couples by dint of a civil union, and anybody who wanted religious trappings could find some place to act them out.

But I think any specific church should have the right to marry or not anybody they choose.  If they make a bigoted choice, then people will chose against that church.

Frank

[The Non Prophet]

Good quote, all marriage is fine and if you marry some, you've got to marry them all. I just hate that couples get special privileges just for coupling up. What a completely arbitrary reason to give out benefits to those who just so happen to shackle them-self to someone legally when incentives should be distributed in a more efficient and fair way.

Same with how our money is distributed. This system favors the rich and preys on the poor.

[SGOS]

One of the parties in the current in-power "red-green" coalition in Norway has made an ultimatum to the Church of Norway. "Marry gays and lesbians or lose the right to marry people altogether". Of course, it's not really the state chuch anymore, as we had separation of church and state only a few years ago  

If there is separation of church and state, I don't know how this could be regulated.  Gays could just find another church to marry them, anyway.  Why would they even want to affiliate with a church that is run by assholes for assholes?