California's Prop 8 - they're lying!

[Disco]

I just heard two callers to a local morning radio show discussing the "California Marriage Protection Act", one from a non-denominational church and the other LDS. Both have been told by their church leaders that if this amendment doesn't pass, their churches could be sued & put out of business if they refuse to marry a gay couple.

The hosts of the show asked if they could point to a specific instance where this has happened; no dice. The LDS guy said he's "sure it's happened, though." Other folks pointed out that this was simply not true; churches will not be "forced" to perform marriages against their doctrine. Again, no dice. These people just won't see the truth.



Sometimes, I really can't stand the closed minds of the religious in this state.

[paximperium]

"Lying for Jesus"

[elipse]

Sometimes I think people close their ears on purpose. I've explained to the fundie branch of my family numerous times that gay marriage would refer only to secular marriage/ any church and pastor who wanted to perform a gay marriage, but STILL they say that they "don't want gay marriage in their church." Drives me crazy.

[Pantaz]

Originally Posted by Disco

The LDS guy said he's "sure it's happened, though."

Another sad point: Other followers will believe him without question.

[Disco]

Well, I'm hoping they'll have ads addressing this issue before the election. It needs to be hammered home to these idjits that they're not going to lose their church!

[patchbunny]

I've already thrown a sizable chunk of money opposing this measure. I'm running out of cash to fight the stupid.

[Disco]

*off to make a donation*

[Fnord]

My Cr0.02...

I think the rationale goes something like, "If the measure is passed, and a gay couple seeking marriage is turned away from a church, then they can sue that church for recompense on the grounds of discrimination. Furthermore, because the license of the religious official (pastor, priest, imam, rabbi, et cetera) to officiate at a marriage ceremnoy is held contingent on that person's obediance to and their upholding of the laws of the Republic of California, the couple that was turned away can seek to have that religious official's license revoked."

So, the belief that if this amendment doesn't pass, a church could be sued and put out of "business" if they refuse to marry a gay couple has some validity. Maybe the church itself won't be dissolved, but the religious leader's license to perform marriages could be revoked (in theory) if he refuses to perform a marraige ceremony for a gay couple.

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps it's time to sever the religious and civil marriages entirely. Why would the state delegate civil powers and responsibilities to religious figures anyway? Let the state recognize civil marriages, and religions can do what they please. The state doesn't care about baptisms, confirmations, last rites, or the other sacraments. Why should it take notice of religious marriage rites?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who's lying - the damn gays or the damn fundies?

I need to know!

[Fnord]

Sorry ... it seems that everybody is lying when it comes to Prop 8. Who is lying more and most often depends on whose sacred cow makes the best hamburger.

[Disco]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Perhaps it's time to sever the religious and civil marriages entirely. Why would the state delegate civil powers and responsibilities to religious figures anyway? Let the state recognize civil marriages, and religions can do what they please. The state doesn't care about baptisms, confirmations, last rites, or the other sacraments. Why should it take notice of religious marriage rites?

Absolutely, I agree. But try to get the folks backing this prop to go for something like that...



I like that our court upheld the constitutional rights of gay Californians.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Perhaps it's time to sever the religious and civil marriages entirely. Why would the state delegate civil powers and responsibilities to religious figures anyway? Let the state recognize civil marriages, and religions can do what they please. The state doesn't care about baptisms, confirmations, last rites, or the other sacraments. Why should it take notice of religious marriage rites?

I think that is a very good idea.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by gtc

I think that is a very good idea.

Spread it! I've even been able to sell some fundies on the concept.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by Fnord

My Cr0.02...

I think the rationale goes something like, "If the measure is passed, and a gay couple seeking marriage is turned away from a church, then they can sue that church for recompense on the grounds of discrimination. Furthermore, because the license of the religious official (pastor, priest, imam, rabbi, et cetera) to officiate at a marriage ceremnoy is held contingent on that person's obediance to and their upholding of the laws of the Republic of California, the couple that was turned away can seek to have that religious official's license revoked."

So, the belief that if this amendment doesn't pass, a church could be sued and put out of "business" if they refuse to marry a gay couple has some validity. Maybe the church itself won't be dissolved, but the religious leader's license to perform marriages could be revoked (in theory) if he refuses to perform a marraige ceremony for a gay couple.

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire for refusing to perform homosexual marriages. I'm sure there's been a thread or two about it on this forum. If secular officials are not being allowed to refuse to participate in services that they regard as immoral, then what assurance can any religious official have that his rights will not be similarly trampled?

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire for refusing to perform homosexual marriages. I'm sure there's been a thread or two about it on this forum. If secular officials are not being allowed to refuse to participate in services that they regard as immoral, then what assurance can any religious official have that his rights will not be similarly trampled?

What rights are these exactly?

It's not a good rhetorical plan to confront the issue head on right before the vote, but I don't see any problem with a marriage official having his license taken away if he refuses to marry any couple that legally has the right to marry. While gays aren't generally a protected-class under court rulings, so non-discrimination laws may not apply, it seems similar ethically to a marriage official refusing to marry a black person to a white person.

However if there were two propositions--one affirming the rights for gays to marry, the other for marriage officials to refuse service to them, I might vote for both just to appease the opposition. Practically I'd much rather have gay couples go a few blocks to one that is willing to marry them than for this to be a highlight-issue for churches to use to rally against the law in the future, perhaps leading to their not being able to marry anywhere.

btw I'm in California, only seen one ad on Prop 8 so far--it featured a man-woman couple about 60 years old, saying they have three children, one is gay, they've always loved all equally and support Prop 8 so that their child can be happy. Well, something like that.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire for refusing to perform homosexual marriages. I'm sure there's been a thread or two about it on this forum. If secular officials are not being allowed to refuse to participate in services that they regard as immoral, then what assurance can any religious official have that his rights will not be similarly trampled?

Because religion makeing discriminatory decisions than secular institutions is more entrenched into law and custom.

It is not unlikely that say receptions halls might well be forced to hold homosexual receptions, just like hotels are forced to put up homosexual customers.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire for refusing to perform homosexual marriages. I'm sure there's been a thread or two about it on this forum. If secular officials are not being allowed to refuse to participate in services that they regard as immoral, then what assurance can any religious official have that his rights will not be similarly trampled?

Now we are being assinine.
There is absolutely NO requirement under any law that religous leaders have to violate their preofessional and religous ethics for any reason whatsoever.
A Catholic Priest is under no obligation to join anyone in marriage just because they have a license. A Rabbi does not marry non-jews, generally. A Methodist minister is not required to marry non-methodists.
There are rules to the game. One could argue, quite successfully, that since XXX violates the very principles of Religon YYY, the principals are therefore NOT members of YYY, and the local shaman is not required to perform the ceremony that makes the union acceptable in the eyes of YYY.
Anyone who actually uses the grey stuff between the ears should be able to reason that out, but fundies seem to have a problem with that.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire for refusing to perform homosexual marriages. I'm sure there's been a thread or two about it on this forum. If secular officials are not being allowed to refuse to participate in services that they regard as immoral, then what assurance can any religious official have that his rights will not be similarly trampled?

None whatsoever.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

... There is absolutely NO requirement under any law that religous leaders have to violate their preofessional and religous ethics for any reason whatsoever.

No law specific to that claim. However, the state can pull the license of a religious leader for failing to obey and uphold the laws of the state. If it comes to pass that same-sex marriages are protected under the law, and a religious leader refuses to uphold that law by refusing to marry a same-sex couple, then the religious leader risks losing his license.

If little old ignorant me can connect a few dots, then imagine what some hotshot liberal lawyer could do with the full picture!

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire

Who are government employees, as opposed to religious leaders, who are not.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Fnord

No law specific to that claim. However, the state can pull the license of a religious leader for failing to obey and uphold the laws of the state. If it comes to pass that same-sex marriages are protected under the law, and a religious leader refuses to uphold that law by refusing to marry a same-sex couple, then the religious leader risks losing his license.

If little old ignorant me can connect a few dots, then imagine what some hotshot liberal lawyer could do with the full picture!

Absolute Nonsense!
Show evidence of that happening!

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Fnord

No law specific to that claim. However, the state can pull the license of a religious leader for failing to obey and uphold the laws of the state. If it comes to pass that same-sex marriages are protected under the law, and a religious leader refuses to uphold that law by refusing to marry a same-sex couple, then the religious leader risks losing his license.

What license would that be? The only requirement in CA is to be a member of the [any] clergy. The state does not license clergy.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

What license would that be? The only requirement in CA is to be a member of the [any] clergy. The state does not license clergy.

Bull's eye!
The authority for the Clergy to perfom marriages rests in their position within their particular church.
California (nor any other State in the US) is not authorized to defrock any minister, priest, rabbi, shaman, etc...
The only way that can happen is to decertify a particular sect from religous status--and that can of worms will not be opened soon...

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Perhaps it's time to sever the religious and civil marriages entirely. Why would the state delegate civil powers and responsibilities to religious figures anyway? Let the state recognize civil marriages, and religions can do what they please. The state doesn't care about baptisms, confirmations, last rites, or the other sacraments. Why should it take notice of religious marriage rites?

Religion was marrying people long before there was a state sticking its nose into it.

The state just attaches the civil responsibilities to it, as it is charged, by The People, with doing that.

It was not charged, by The People, with disallowing religion from marrying people.


For many people, marriage is a religious thing, not a government thing. The government is just hired to enforce a few tidbits related to it, like divorce, inheritance, and first-of-kin rights, in a secular way. Government is not the lord and master of the situation. It is the hireling hired by the people for a limited role.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Religion was marrying people long before there was a state sticking its nose into it.

I am not sure how strong this position really is.

Where say Roman marraiges religious or secular? They certainly had many secular laws governing them

Marriage seems to be primarily a social structure, having differing religious effects depending on your society.

As a different data point, the Pilgrims in plymouth did not think that the church should be marrying people and that it should be secular as the bible does not show religious weddings.

So you are clearly wrong with the statement above.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by paximperium

"Lying for Jesus"

Well, there's been a Bible that missed the "not" out of commandment no. 7, so why not no. 9?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Religion was marrying people long before there was a state sticking its nose into it.

The state just attaches the civil responsibilities to it, as it is charged, by The People, with doing that.

It was not charged, by The People, with disallowing religion from marrying people.


For many people, marriage is a religious thing, not a government thing. The government is just hired to enforce a few tidbits related to it, like divorce, inheritance, and first-of-kin rights, in a secular way. Government is not the lord and master of the situation. It is the hireling hired by the people for a limited role.

What it really boils down to is that the government recognizes unions sanctioned by recognized churches and which are not in violation of State qnd/or Federal Law

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I am not sure how strong this position really is.

Where say Roman marraiges religious or secular? They certainly had many secular laws governing them

Marriage seems to be primarily a social structure, having differing religious effects depending on your society.

As a different data point, the Pilgrims in plymouth did not think that the church should be marrying people and that it should be secular as the bible does not show religious weddings.

So you are clearly wrong with the statement above.

no disrespect but your post is all over the place and, like the loser in a game of musical chairs, left standing. I cannot reconcile your closing sentence with anything Beerina posted. So far as I can see, Beerina was dead-on, balls-accurate.

[Disco]

Originally Posted by Fnord

No law specific to that claim. However, the state can pull the license of a religious leader for failing to obey and uphold the laws of the state. If it comes to pass that same-sex marriages are protected under the law, and a religious leader refuses to uphold that law by refusing to marry a same-sex couple, then the religious leader risks losing his license.

If little old ignorant me can connect a few dots, then imagine what some hotshot liberal lawyer could do with the full picture!

But that's not the argument those supporting Prop 8 are using. Both of the callers I heard were afraid their church would be sued & put into bankruptcy. These folks were convinced of it; probably because of the successful lawsuits against the Catholic church based on the actions of individual priests. But you can't equate refusing to marry a couple with pedophilia. Lots of religious leaders refuse to marry people all the time, and it's not against the law.

Same-sex marriages are already protected under California law. There's no license for church leaders to lose, AFAIK. I'm not sure your points are valid.

[Fnord]

^ It looks like you're right.

http://www.ordination4all.com/marriage_laws.htm

Quote:

California - The laws of the State of California make it unnecessary for persons performing marriages to file credentials with the clerk of the court or with anyone else. The county and state are removed from any responsibility for verification of credentials. The State does not maintain a central registry of members of the clergy. Any such concern for verification is totally at the discretion of the parties to the marriage.

Unfortunately, a lot of Xians believe otherwise ... perhaps they're being (mis)led to believe so?

[Kopji]

To promote this notion of ministerial liability they would also need to convince me that by refusing to marry someone accused of any moral religious code violation, it is a legal issue they are actually concerned about. Trust me they have no concern that the fornicators and miscreants are going to rise up to sue them.

The idea that a minister or church could be successfully sued for not marrying someone that they had moral reservations about has absolutely no truth in it.

Usually goes like this: The people who want to be married request a marriage license from the state. This is about $25 or so. They then go find someone to perform the ceremony, it might be a minister, a judge, or rowboat captain. You will not be considered legally married without the state marriage license. The church or boat captain can think whatever they want with or without the license but the license makes it legal.

A church that becomes a political force and does not pay taxes is like having representation without taxation.

[Cainkane1]

This isn't true. Secular law is what secular law is and religious doctrine is what religious doctrine is. You can't force them to marry anyone.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

It seems we've already heard of secular officials coming under fire for refusing to perform homosexual marriages. I'm sure there's been a thread or two about it on this forum. If secular officials are not being allowed to refuse to participate in services that they regard as immoral, then what assurance can any religious official have that his rights will not be similarly trampled?

So your contention is that government officials have a right to not do their jobs, and that they should face no repercussions if they choose to exercise that right? That's great! I'm going home to watch football and wait for my paycheck.

[MattC]

This is the entirety of California Code 307, which governs the solemnization of marriages within the state (as retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve):

Originally Posted by California Codes of Law

307. This division, so far as it relates to the solemnizing of
marriage, is not applicable to members of a particular religious
society or denomination not having clergy for the purpose of
solemnizing marriage or entering the marriage relation, if all of the
following requirements are met:
(a) The parties to the marriage sign and endorse on the form
prescribed by the State Department of Public Health, showing all of
the following:
(1) The fact, time, and place of entering into the marriage.
(2) The printed names, signatures, and mailing addresses of two
witnesses to the ceremony.
(3) The religious society or denomination of the parties to the
marriage, and that the marriage was entered into in accordance with
the rules and customs of that religious society or denomination. The
statement of the parties to the marriage that the marriage was
entered into in accordance with the rules and customs of the
religious society or denomination is conclusively presumed to be
true.
(b) The License and Certificate of Non-Clergy Marriage, endorsed
pursuant to subdivision (a), is returned to the county recorder of
the county in which the license was issued within 10 days after the
ceremony.

I have bolded several parts of the code that I personally found applicable to the current debate so as to save future reviewers from legal tedium searching for relevancy.

It then seems that no reasonable case could be brought against a church, nor against a clergyman of a church, for refusing to solemnize a marriage that goes against the "rules and customs of that religious society or denomination". While an unscrupulous couple could certainly bring an equally unscrupulous case, it is highly likely that a court would not side with a case so flagrantly in violation of the marriage laws.

It is also important to note that there exists a way to have the marriage solemnized without going through a religious organization. Since comparatively few religious organizations support gay marriage, this seems the route many of them would take. In that case, subsection B of 307.3 would be applicable.

~ Matt

[Fnord]

Still, MattC, the fear of legal retribution exists among Xians.

So much for faith...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Still, MattC, the fear of legal retribution exists among Xians.

So much for faith...

It's because they love to see themselves as persecuted martyrs, no matter how much they control.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

no disrespect but your post is all over the place and, like the loser in a game of musical chairs, left standing. I cannot reconcile your closing sentence with anything Beerina posted. So far as I can see, Beerina was dead-on, balls-accurate.

OK show me from anchient legal codes in say roman law, the code of hamarabi or chinese law that marriage was considered primarily a religious function.

[MattC]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Still, MattC, the fear of legal retribution exists among Xians.

So much for faith...

They may fear what they like, all I can do is to provide evidence showing their fear to be without reasonable support or legal justification.

~ MattC

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Fnord

My Cr0.02...

I think the rationale goes something like, "If the measure is passed, and a gay couple seeking marriage is turned away from a church, then they can sue that church for recompense on the grounds of discrimination. Furthermore, because the license of the religious official (pastor, priest, imam, rabbi, et cetera) to officiate at a marriage ceremnoy is held contingent on that person's obediance to and their upholding of the laws of the Republic of California, the couple that was turned away can seek to have that religious official's license revoked."

So, the belief that if this amendment doesn't pass, a church could be sued and put out of "business" if they refuse to marry a gay couple has some validity. Maybe the church itself won't be dissolved, but the religious leader's license to perform marriages could be revoked (in theory) if he refuses to perform a marraige ceremony for a gay couple.

OK, imagine this. Two non-Catholics, a man and a woman, want to be married in a Catholic cathedral by a Catholic priest because the architecture is really pretty. The priest asks if they will be converting to Catholicism before the marriage. The couple says no. The priest refuses to perform the marriage. Do you think he can successfully be sued?

No.