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

[7,052,770]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

[minionofmidas]

Because that fires up those of their supporters that aren't simply homophobes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the same reason they said Obamacare would create death panels.

[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.

[King]

It's highly unlikely there's a community the United States, even in the Deep South, where there are no ministers in the area who are willing to perform gay marriages.  As long as there is at least one, a same sex couple could choose a Christian wedding without forcing anyone to do anything.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

There have been lawsuits over failure to provide services or facilities to same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies, so the concern is hardly far-fetched.  Slightly hyperbolic, since presumably one would choose to have a minister officiate so as to be married in one's own religion as well as civilly which would imply a minister in a church that does accept same-sex marriage. However, not so hyperbolic that I would call it outright lying.

[Blue3]

I don't get it either.

Churches can already refuse to marry people for whatever reason they want... if the person is of a different race, or different religion, etc. That's all still legal.

[Likely Voter]

It's another non-issue. Just like how SSM is slippery slope leading to people marrying 'anything' or how SSM forces kids to be taught sexuality in pre-school and all the other BS.

I guess it is good news. The opponents of SSM have to make up these crazy things because they know that their real reason (they think gays are icky and the bible says so) arent politically or legally viable .

[All Along The Watchtower]

It plays into the persecution complex that many American Christians have.

[Brittain33]

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."

[Lief 🗽]

Republicans lie constantly about everything in an effort to scare their base.

[Brittain33]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

There have been lawsuits over failure to provide services or facilities to same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies, so the concern is hardly far-fetched.  

Were any of the lawsuits targeted at religious groups for religious facilities?

I know of the Ocean Grove pavilion case and the photographer in New Mexico who was sued, but not of churches sued to open their facilities to same-sex couples.

Do you know of cases where a Catholic church was sued by a non-Catholic heterosexual couple to rent out their facility to them, or a similar cross-faith, opposite-sex wedding? In theory, that's the same situation. Has that happened? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what does that mean about the precedent for same-sex couples?

[DC Al Fine]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

There have been lawsuits over failure to provide services or facilities to same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies, so the concern is hardly far-fetched.  

Were any of the lawsuits targeted at religious groups for religious facilities?

I know of the Ocean Grove pavilion case and the photographer in New Mexico who was sued, but not of churches sued to open their facilities to same-sex couples.

Do you know of cases where a Catholic church was sued by a non-Catholic heterosexual couple to rent out their facility to them, or a similar cross-faith, opposite-sex wedding? In theory, that's the same situation. Has that happened? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what does that mean about the precedent for same-sex couples?

I don't think so. Catholic/Protestant couples don't really see the church's attitude towards them as a human rights issue.

[Benj]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

There have been lawsuits over failure to provide services or facilities to same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies, so the concern is hardly far-fetched.  

Were any of the lawsuits targeted at religious groups for religious facilities?

I know of the Ocean Grove pavilion case and the photographer in New Mexico who was sued, but not of churches sued to open their facilities to same-sex couples.

Do you know of cases where a Catholic church was sued by a non-Catholic heterosexual couple to rent out their facility to them, or a similar cross-faith, opposite-sex wedding? In theory, that's the same situation. Has that happened? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what does that mean about the precedent for same-sex couples?

I don't think so. Catholic/Protestant couples don't really see the church's attitude towards them as a human rights issue.

Nor do gay people? I'm sure they would see it as a human rights issue if the government decided they would no longer recognize Catholic(/Protestant) marriages.

[DC Al Fine]

Has that EVER happened?  Anywhere?  Has anyone ever advocated that?

All of these Democratic announcements note that they don't support that, but shouldn't it go without saying?  Isn't it time to stop the inane fearmongering (lying)?

There have been lawsuits over failure to provide services or facilities to same-sex marriages and commitment ceremonies, so the concern is hardly far-fetched.  

Were any of the lawsuits targeted at religious groups for religious facilities?

I know of the Ocean Grove pavilion case and the photographer in New Mexico who was sued, but not of churches sued to open their facilities to same-sex couples.

Do you know of cases where a Catholic church was sued by a non-Catholic heterosexual couple to rent out their facility to them, or a similar cross-faith, opposite-sex wedding? In theory, that's the same situation. Has that happened? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what does that mean about the precedent for same-sex couples?

I don't think so. Catholic/Protestant couples don't really see the church's attitude towards them as a human rights issue.

Nor do gay people? I'm sure they would see it as a human rights issue if the government decided they would no longer recognize Catholic(/Protestant) marriages.

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

[Brittain33]

I don't think so. Catholic/Protestant couples don't really see the church's attitude towards them as a human rights issue.

Neither do same-sex couples, generally.

Many of them would like their religions to recognize them—I know some long-suffering Catholics like that—but they are the ones who aren't going to sue so they can hold their weddings in a facility which is operating under court order.  

[Brittain33]

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.

[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?

[DC Al Fine]

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.

Ok fair enough.

[Brittain33]

Facts matter don't they? Who knew?

I'm prickly about the idea that gays are are going to pursue litigation beyond what's needed for equality out of spite.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how different things look now from when I was married 9 years ago. Back then, I wouldn't say it was a hostile environment, but many people did respond as if it were a self-indulgent or deliberately provocative act. I know why they felt that way, but for me, it just wasn't - we got married for the same reasons straight people did, for the celebration and to announce our commitment. It couldn't help but be political. And I wasn't naive, I know how people viewed it, I just filtered out the awkwardness and made the best of it among our friends and family who were truly part of our happiness.

Now that we're on the verge of something big, I just can't be impersonal about this. No, we are not doing this because we're on a jihad against religious groups. We are not unreasonable. This is a conservative agenda if there ever was one. We just want equality.

[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.

[anvi]

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?

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.