Why do Republicans pretend ministers will be forced to perform gay marriages?

[Torie]

I think the rap is that church premises would have to be made available for gay unions, not that ministers would be forced to officiate. Involuntary or indentured servitude became beyond the pale some time ago. Is there any validity to the church premises rap? Certainly not for the sanctuary itself in my view, but perhaps more in play are ancillary church facilities that are sometimes rented out to third parties, which gets into equal protection and discrimination issues.

Hope this helps.

[Torie]

No, I just mean that's why I doubt there have been any cases with straight wedding hall rentals.

I was raised Jewish and I can vouch that for as long as it was an issue, Jews did consider social exclusion from facilities on religious grounds to be a human rights issue. And yet you probably can't find a case of Jews suing for St. Patrick's Cathedral to host a Jewish wedding.

I find myself in conflict with religious groups who fight to keep civil marriage defined to my exclusion. But I could not give a damn about how they define marriage within their own traditions, since America has a diversity of faiths and they have a 1st amendment right to define it for their own adherents as they please. (As should the religions who recognize same-sex marriage...)

This distinction may not have been clear, but a lot of anger at the Mormon Church in 2008 centered on their efforts on behalf of Proposition 8 to define marriage for all Californians and not their practices within their own faith.

As to the LDS, I have heard through the grapevine that the leadership deeply regrets its involvement with Prop 8, and the ensuing animus against their faith. The blowback was substantial. I doubt the LDS will do a redux. I myself have told two or three LDS chaps about my deep disappointment in their involvement - well not so much that, but the dishonest sales pitch they concocted for  Prop 8, which members under instruction from their stake leaders repeated almost verbatim, as if they had memorized the lines. They agreed with me.

[Torie]

I think the rap is that church premises would have to be made available for gay unions, not that ministers would be forced to officiate. Involuntary or indentured servitude became beyond the pale some time ago. Is there any validity to the church premises rap? Certainly not for the sanctuary itself in my view, but perhaps more in play are ancillary church facilities that are sometimes rented out to third parties, which gets into equal protection and discrimination issues.

Hope this helps.

There's a case where a Methodist church in Ocean Grove, NJ, had a large oceanfront pavilion they used for some occasions, which they rent out and which they also took state money to fix up and restore. This community began as a Methodist summer retreat. After the pavilion was restored, they tried to exclude a same-sex couple from renting it and lost because of a state anti-discrimination law and the $ issue. That's the most common case cited by conservatives for how pastors are going to have to rent out their churches, which elides the fact that it a) wasn't a church, but a property owned by the church they rented out for other uses, and b) they took state $.

I bring this up because I saw this, I think on RedState.com, as "a Methodist church was sued and forced to rent their facility to a gay couple."

Facts matter don't they? Who knew?

[Torie]

I understand Brittain33. And agree. But I think diplomacy is the way to go here, now that we are on the cusp of getting this done. There is no need I  think to leave scar tissue in the wake for those who are going to lose this argument. Be gentle - easier said then done in your case I know, since unlike myself, you have had to deal with discrimination up close and personal. And it hurts, I know. I was enraged when I was refused service at an Italian deli, because I looked like the elephant man the day after my face life surgery. That incident gave me more empathy than before about the personal hurt of discrimination. There is no substitute for having experienced that yourself. None. I was enraged and angry, and for awhile, thought about using my skills, to make the lives of the deli owners a living hell. Fortunately, I got over it.

[Torie]

There is no need I  think to leave scar tissue in the wake for those who are going to lose this argument.

Glad to see you're so confident about this, Torie.  I've been listening in on oral arguments this week and I'm not so sure.  Or do you just mean this will happen sooner rather than later?

No anvi, I meant the ballot box. I actually oppose the supreme court nixing state laws banning gay marriage, or overturning Prop 8 for that matter. I don't want a redux of the abortion thing, or any facsimile thereof. We just need to punish politicians that don't have the courage to respect equality on this issue. We didn't choose to be gay damn it. We just are. It took me 59 years to work it out for myself, and societal conventions (and my Dad, who had a huge impact on my life, and to whom I owe most of the character traits in myself that I respect, as opposed to the negative ones), no doubt had a part. But I am not blaming anybody - other than myself, and I don't do that much actually. I look to the future - always - rather than dwell on the past, except to learn from it. One cannot undo the past.

[Torie]

Torie, are Americans really willing to punish politicians that don't support gay marriage, and gay rights in general? While the number of Americans who support gay marriage is growing, I just don't see nearly as many Americans who consider support for gay marriage a litmus test for politicians (the way, say, opposition to tax increases is for much of the Republican Party. ) Now, it may be a litmus test for the Democratic Party primaries very soon, but of course, the Democratic Party primary electorate =/= the nation as a whole.

One step at a time. It will happen. The Pub politicians are nearly desperate to get this issue behind them. They know they are on the wrong side of history, and will not be forgiven for just saying no, when 58% of the public, and about a third of the Pubs (maybe closer to half now of those with money), say it is time, to extend equality to those with whom, more and more, they know to be gay, and respect, because we are out, but just as "mainstream" as they are, and responsible and hard working citizens, desiring only the kind of stable family life others have in our private lives. This is going to move very fast now. The dam has been broken. I am quite confident about this.

I know of no Pub in the circles that I run in who opposes gay marriage by the way, and they all know I am gay now. All of them. Is it representative? No. But they have disproportionate influence.

[Torie]

Forcing someone to officiate over a wedding to which they take religious exception clearly violates the First Amendment in my view - and should. Period. That lawsuit in NH should go nowhere I would think.

[Torie]

Forcing someone to officiate over a wedding to which they take religious exception clearly violates the First Amendment in my view - and should. Period. That lawsuit in NH should go nowhere I would think.

Of course it won't go anywhere. So if such challenges will go nowhere, why is there a push amongst some to codify a religious objection in law for same sex marriage only?

Optics.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Back in the States Muon2? How was Paris? 

If we are talking about a clerk having religious objections to gay marriage, handing out the license, that is a very minor matter, no?  And if an Illinois court case held that reasonable accommodations to religious practices need to be afforded to employees, surely that applies to government employees no? If so, that issue is already dealt with. I have trouble believing frankly any clerk performing such a ministerial function would object to handing out a piece of paper he is duty bound to give out in any event.

Am I missing something here? 

Steve

[Torie]

Is your concern about vendors not affiliated with a religious group, like a florist or a photographer, or religious organizations as vendors of churches and wedding services?  

I asked two questions, because I see each of them creating situations that require some thought. One question is about private vendors who are personally religious but not part of a religious organization. The other question is about religious organizations that provide services as missions beyond worship services.

Regarding your first question in your post above this one, what did the Illinois court base their decision on as to the pharmacist? I ask, because to me, it is far more intrusive, and I think raises a host of Constitutional issues, to force someone to provide a private service on site, such as photographing a wedding.  So absent some statute covering the pharmacist, and not others, it seems almost a fortiori to me that the photographer would have a similar exemption under the case law precedent.

If you are talking about a flower shop, where folks walk in and buy flowers, how would the vendor even know their purpose as a practical matter?  That gets close to the public accommodations issue, and I don't think such an exception is appropriate, to refuse to sell a product based on the purpose the customer intends to use it, if legal, which it certainly is here.

Regarding religious missions, which are charitable, they have a right to serve whom they wish. I see no issue there, unless state funding is involved. We have discussed that one before. I am not sure how it applies to weddings, or possibly could. We talked about adoptions. But passing the gay marriage law in Illinois, will not have any impact as to the status quo, which as I understand it, is that religious organizations cannot get state funding, if they refuse adoption services for same gender couples who have entered a "civil union."  

So the only argument as to the adoption matter standing in the way of one supporting the gay marriage bill, is to hold gays hostage as to affording them a right to marriage in order to extract a fix of the existing laws as to religious organizations and same gender couple adoptions. That clearly seems just wrong to me to do that. You don't deny someone a right they should have, because in another context, someone else's rights as one might see it are being violated. Two wrongs do not make a right. But sure, I see nothing wrong with trying to get an amendment to the Bill to deal with the adoption issue - but not as a sine qua non. It should stand on its one merits.

Make sense?