Unless you want to go down the ‘church is place of public accomodation’ road, which is pretty rocky on church/state grounds; I’d assume that the course of action would simply be to have one of the state agents who can officiate weddings do the necessary paperwork.
You don’t need a church to get married(and even as rental space you probably don’t want one that doesn’t want you); and the state agents who have that capability can be compelled to do their job without impinging on the establishment clause.
Oh no, other people get access to health care and other people get to marry the person they love, I am diminished!
Watching the meltdown at Reddit over the deletion of the fatpeoplehate subreddit, and earlier the gamergate meltdown over women in the videogames arena, and the confederate flag racist traitors debate, and now gay marriage, I see an underlying pattern of behavior.
It appears to me that the people who promote racism, homophobia, misogyny and other forms of hate, are people who are themselves powerless and ineffective. It’s a pecking order thing that is likely built into our behavioral DNA, given the social animals that we are. What galls me about modern so-called “Christians” is that they’ve completely missed the point that they are called to rise above that selfish animal nature and find compassion for “The Other”. Instead, Conservatives and Christians look for every way to put others down so they can feel better about themselves.
That’s childish (in the worst way that an adult can be childish), self-serving, small-minded ignorance that degrades us all.
Marriage officiation laws vary by state to state, but I can’t think of a single one that requires a church. The officiant must meet certain requirements, and I seem to recall some states include religious requirements, but they aren’t onerous.
But if you want to get married, come over here and I’ll officiate. It’s been half a decade since I did my last wedding, but its like riding a bicycle! (You? Yes! You? Yes! 'K, sign this and give me $40. See ya around kids :D)
Well, politically it will be interesting as the Repubs continue their ongoing schism.
I don’t think any of the top Republicans wanted the ACA to actually be defeated. They prefer it as a huge bogeyman to campaign against. Ditto gay marriage.
There’s no way a church would be forced to host or sanction a marriage. The courthouse (or clerk’s office, or city hall, or what have you, depending on state law) is where you find the people who are obligated by law to marry anyone who asks.*
I know you’re an evil sinner and reprobate who deserves to be tortured beyond all human endurance for an infinite number of aeons…but hey, I’ll give a nod to my boss in passing so he knows I don’t belong in that hellhole with likes of you.
The Christian Church actively prevents people from a rigorous self-examination, and therefore promotes ignorance.
Does that statement not promote an ignorance of its own by asserting a blanket truth about “The Christian Church”? Or are you seriously suggesting that the “Church” is (a) a monolithic entity with a single set of beliefs and (b) that believers are merely simple minded fools who go along with whatever they are told? On that basis, you could replace “The Christian Church” with “The Republican Party” (or, indeed, “The Democratic Party”…!)
Yes, there are some amazingly small-minded and insecure Christians who fall back on dogma to bolster their self-esteem and find it reassuring that others reinforce their world view. But I’m not entirely sure that this has anything to do with them being Christians as such; there are plenty of examples from elsewhere that would suggest that it’s more about merely being human.
Has not happened yet in the history of the U.S. for any other marriage situation. Why would it start now, when transportation and available options are at an all-time high?
And a long time ago in the middle ages the state was the defacto place of marriage as it was and still is a legal contract. The church wanted nothing to do with it till the lords and ladies to celebrate it with their community and that was the best place for it so the state happily pawned it off on the church to perform the ceremonies, then came all the holy sacrament trappings. Still to this day the minister says ‘the power vested in me by the State Of’ which means they have a license by the state that makes the marriage a legally binding contract without needing a lawyer, notary, etc, etc. Hell the marriage documents I signed had not holy this/that/whatever on them just a bunch of Government of British Columbia language. (well maybe holy matrimony as that is the common term but whatevs, i am an unshwashed heathen)
Much of marriage law in the western world has mostly to do with Roman law/traditions, and that has bugger all to with judeo-christian crap except what was added on after the fact they got forced into performing the ceremony.
And I am with Kinky Friedman, ‘I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us’
Well, putting aside the fact that every community does not have a courthouse (I mean, I guess they should, but not all do), I was responding to the idea that a hyper-conservative church would be forced to marry someone they didn’t want to marry, when many towns – courthouse or no – are served by more than one denomination of Christianity. If that’s the couple’s flavor, naturally.
If someone doesn’t want to be married in a religious setting/via a religious ceremony, then yes, they can always go down to the ol’ courthouse (or a few towns over). That’s probably what I would do, being an agnostic sort and not much on spectacle.
Not sure how what I said earlier precludes that option.
You’d have to have some crazy situation where the people desiring to be married were 1) incredibly stubborn, 2) gluttons for punishment, or 3) hoping to make an unnecessary political point. Or else, 4) be unusually limited in their ability to travel, which would make funding a public wedding pretty difficult anyway.
So, yeah: Theoretically possible, but really just one of any number of culture war bogey-situations to search under the bed for. Like homosexual recruitment of children, and so forth.
I saw a clip today where some guy from CNN - Jake Tapper, whoever that is - asked Donald Trump “what’s traditional about being married 3 times?” To which of course Trump mentioned that he’s a hard worker and his wives were great or some such horseshit.
But it’s a valid point - these guys and gals who are all so worried about “traditional marriage” and have been married multiple times, have affairs, get hookers, go to strip clubs, pay for porn etc… never see the irony.
It’s been said a million times already, but - if the whacked right wing is so worried about marriage, then get to work banning divorce and adultery.
No, it’s not even theoretically possible that a church would be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. Not even hypothetically. At all.
Really, it’s not. Such a case would be dismissed out of hand.
I’m a little fuzzier on the hosting thing. If the church runs a function space, that it rents out to people for meetings, weddings, etc, then possibly they can’t say they won’t rent it out for a same-sex wedding. That involves the distinction between the church as a church and the church as a business. I’m not sure about that.
But forcing a church to perform a wedding? Nope. Never. No how, no way. Not gonna happen. Can’t happen.
To be fair Canada has a queen and protector of the faith, the queen of Canada can appoint judges to be agents for what I assume to be the Anglican church.
The US being legally secular, despite what the White right Christian lobby would like you to think, should not dabble in issuing titles like lord, count, sir, registered-priest, or mrs. The US does not have a crowned sovereign who’s familial line has been appointed in a misty age of yore by god or a watery tart with a sword, rather all of its power is officially derived from and for the people despite how the sausage really gets made. If the US wants to issue a civil contract at will for anyone wanting to register, and independent of what religious titles or status they have obtained, that would be brilliant, it could even be based on living arrangements. But being a secular state playing with religious titles like married should be off limits form the start.
We definitely should not allow a secular state to designate some extra religious people to wave noodles over certain five person groupings in his noodlynes’s sauciness and enact, through a religious ritual, a legally binding contract to be enforced by the state while less saucy folks are not granted this privilege by the state.
In a fundamentalist pastafarian state I suppose the head chef might be in some league with the government and things like marriage, conversion, and infant sauce dipping records would be kept as there would be no separation of kitchen and state, much like the realm of the queen and protector of the faith of the UK, N Ireland, Oz, Nz, Canada, and all of those pesky islands.
FWIW I was quite upset back in the 90s to find that my partner had registered the private religious sanctification of our living arrangement with the state, but I am kinda a nut that way.
Why would you assume that all religious people, or even just all Christians, feel this way?
Seriously, there is this tendency to make the most unpleasant religious folks you can find a strawman for all religious people everywhere, and it’s really frustrating.
Actually, the supposed founder of the church had very definite views on the subject. To be precise, in a more or less literal translation, he said “You cannot serve both God and money”. (I say supposed because there isn’t really a lot of connect between some churches and the first bit of the New Testament.)
“You must not be happy having no higher power* so I’ll appeal to my higher power to co-opt you if it can.”
among others, but they are all degradations of varying subtlety no matter how intended. Another poster above has already mentioned precisely how one can avoid being offended because constructs, and also pointed out how/why we are offended anyway.
Praying for someone in that manner isn’t actually respecting that person no matter what is in the prayer. Clarification: --advising someone-- that you are praying for them because they don’t share your religion isn’t actually respecting that person.
The same could be said for someone that feels obliged to state that they themselves are atheists/other upon learning the religion of another, particularly if the information wasn’t offered but was deduced. Like the asshole who, upon seeing someone wearing a small crucifix or something, feels compelled to tell the person about their atheism.
There are ways for people of differing beliefs to respect one another, but the best one is probably to leave it alone altogether.
*edit - also flawed in common assumption that people outside conventional religion have no higher power
