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

[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.

[memphis]

Much more than 58% ofr the public want to tax rich people more, raise the minimum wage, and institute stronger gun safety laws. And the GOP has no trouble saying no. I see no reason why they will change now on that basis alone. However, they've never really cared it and now it is no longer a useful tool.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Much more than 58% ofr the public want to tax rich people more, raise the minimum wage, and institute stronger gun safety laws. And the GOP has no trouble saying no. I see no reason why they will change now on that basis alone. However, they've never really cared it and now it is no longer a useful tool.

Read Torie's post closer again. Those Republicans with "disproportionate influence" are more receptive to gay marriage than taxing rich people, raising the minimum wage, or instituting stronger gun safety laws.

[muon2]

Torie has touched on tolerance in handling the issue of gay marriage. Here's a related article on the topic from John Kass, a prominent Chicago Tribune columnist, and orthodox Greek. My apologies if this is still behind the paper's subscriber wall. In case it is here's the core of the article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

I'm not seeing the relevance here. The gays should just keep quiet during Lent as a sign of tolerance?

[afleitch]

Muon, the problem is you’re hypothesising. Same sex marriage is simply an extension of marriage law which has been changed over time. First cousin marriage was legal in all states before the civil war and then because marriage started to become more and more about exercising public morality, bans started to creep into state law. Laws were then extended to include interracial marriage and to make divorce and the re-marriage of divorcees easier. Yet the Catholic Church can still refuse to marry divorcees, churches can refuse to marry a couple if one of them is of a different religion and so on.

Echoing earlier sentiments in this thread, can you name an example whereby an opposite sex marriage has legally challenged a religious body to marry them against that churches will and succeeded? Or do you accept that marriage law allows all forms of religious marriage, religious refusal to marry and marriage by a registrar to co-exist. Why demand a religious exemption for same sex marriage only when one isn’t currently needed to allow millions of marriages to take place already?

So what happens if you do include one? Benj pointed out in an earlier thread that in New Hampshire where there is an exemption, there is now a pending suit that is trying to force a priest to perform an interfaith marriage. It claims that the law's inclusion of a religious exemption allowing priests to refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds made an implication that there was no exemption for refusing to perform any other type of marriage.

There is no need to complicate what really is a very simple matter to legislate.

[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.

[afleitch]

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?

[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.

[7,052,770]

When democrats put this meaningless non-scenario into their pro-gay marriage statements, it implies that it's a real thing,  not a republican fantasy. I wish we would stop shooting ourselves in the foot like that...

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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)?

Maybe not yet, but it's perfectly possible. If a two-man/two-woman union is considered a marriage, eventually there will be some couple that will want to get their marriage license at a church, and if they are denied, they will complain about how they aren't really equal because they don't get the church wedding they want.

Further, your argument about how "no one would actually do that" not only offers little reassurance, but is in fact false, because efforts, through the courts, to force churches to cater to gays are already being made.

[7,052,770]

No one forces churches to marry people of different religions or denominations. No one forced that redneck church in Crystal Springs to marry that black couple last year. There is obvious ironclad precedent for not forcing ministers to marry people they don't want to, so let's quit the bullsh**t, ok?

[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)?

Maybe not yet, but it's perfectly possible. If a two-man/two-woman union is considered a marriage, eventually there will be some couple that will want to get their marriage license at a church, and if they are denied, they will complain about how they aren't really equal because they don't get the church wedding they want.

Lots of things are perfectly possible, but we can't legislate solely around the unlikely or improbable in order to justify injustice.

It's perfectly possible that an inter-faith couple could sue the Catholic Church or a local church for not performing their wedding. And yet, it's never happened, or if it did, it got thrown out. Even if that interfaith couple felt really strongly about it.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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?

Doesn't virtually every gay marriage bill also include some manner of religious exemption for churches? Has a gay couple ever forced a church to perform a ceremony against its wishes?

A problem isn't really a problem if it doesn't exist.

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.

Gay marriage isn't just a Republican/Democrat issue, it's a new generation/old generation one. The old generation is somewhat opposed to gay marriage. The new generation is nearly unanimous in its support for gay marriage -- over 80%.

That's what's forcing the GOP's hand on this. Once Democrats began to embrace marriage equality, they solidified a connection between their values and the values of a new generation of voters. Unless this issue disappears, the younger generation is never going to vote Republican. And the longer the debate rages on, the more permanent damage is done.

[Brittain33]

Doesn't virtually every gay marriage bill also include some manner of religious exemption for churches? Has a gay couple ever forced a church to perform a ceremony against its wishes?

A problem isn't really a problem if it doesn't exist.

An issue right now is that the Illinois bill apparently doesn't, unlike the others.

[badgate]

While I don't think opposition to SSM will peel away that many voters, if a candidate can be goaded into saying homophobic things it would definitely lose them voters. I was very disappointed President Obama didn't try this in the debates. There was never a question about it but he could've worked it in and cornered Romney into either saying something homophobic or flip flopping on the issue.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Doesn't virtually every gay marriage bill also include some manner of religious exemption for churches? Has a gay couple ever forced a church to perform a ceremony against its wishes?

A problem isn't really a problem if it doesn't exist.

An issue right now is that the Illinois bill apparently doesn't, unlike the others.

Well now we have the reason muon will give if he votes no (assuming he makes a statement at all of course.)

[Jordan]

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

Because Republicans live in pretend-land.

Wasn't Romney going to win the country by a landslide, the polls oversampled Democrats, and Nate Silver just made up numbers?

Oh wait...

[muon2]

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?

Last year the IL courts overturned a administrative rule that required religiously objecting pharmacists from dispensing morning-after pills. That creates a precedent for one type of religious objector who would otherwise be forced to comply or go out of business.

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to same sex marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

Is there a parallel for a church that runs a school and allows community groups to use the gymnasium for a fee (or donation) from barring a same sex marriage reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

The IL bill is written in such a way as to keep the IL courts from deciding these cases in the same way it did for the pharmacists.

[Brittain33]

Being a pharmacist is a non-religious position that is licensed by the state.

Arguments about faith for a pharmacist could pose a worse slippery slope... Claims of faith preventing someone from doing their job require confirmation or else it becomes an opening for fraud. It is one person's judgment--to say a Catholic pharmacist can't fill a birth control prescription for a Jewish patient requires, at best, a highly personal interpretation.

A priest is NOT a secular position with a highly individual definition of his faith. Not only that, but there is an extensive tradition of a 1st amendment shield around religious leaders and institutions performing religious duties.

[Brittain33]

Mike, do you support same-sex marriage with a written exemption for a religious institution's freedoms?

If you don't, then it might not be worthwhile to debate only on that point.

[afleitch]

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?

Last year the IL courts overturned a administrative rule that required religiously objecting pharmacists from dispensing morning-after pills. That creates a precedent for one type of religious objector who would otherwise be forced to comply or go out of business.

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to same sex marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

Is there a parallel for a church that runs a school and allows community groups to use the gymnasium for a fee (or donation) from barring a same sex marriage reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

The IL bill is written in such a way as to keep the IL courts from deciding these cases in the same way it did for the pharmacists.

The pharmacy issue is a false equivalency as was already stated by brittain. My point still stands. To take your examples how about these scenarios;

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to interracial marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

Is there a parallel for a church that runs a school and allows community groups to use the gymnasium for a fee (or donation) from barring a different denomination reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

If you think these are also adequate concerns too then say so, and point out where current marriage and discrimination law doesn't address these concerns. If you don't think these are valid objections then say so. If however you think the only problem is with same sex marriage and anti-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens then say so.

[muon2]

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?

Last year the IL courts overturned a administrative rule that required religiously objecting pharmacists from dispensing morning-after pills. That creates a precedent for one type of religious objector who would otherwise be forced to comply or go out of business.

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to same sex marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

Is there a parallel for a church that runs a school and allows community groups to use the gymnasium for a fee (or donation) from barring a same sex marriage reception without being forced to close their doors to all other groups not directly related to the school or church?

The IL bill is written in such a way as to keep the IL courts from deciding these cases in the same way it did for the pharmacists.

The pharmacy issue is a false equivalency as was already stated by brittain. My point still stands. To take your examples how about these scenarios;

Is there a parallel then for a photographer who objects to interracial marriage, but could be forced out of business by the state if services are denied on that basis?

I believe that decisions based on race are held to a higher constitutional standard, and interracial marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage for purposes of state law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know of a number of churches that have barred groups from sufficiently different religions from using facilities for their ceremonies. I know of no repercussions from their actions in that regard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though my faith has no objection to same sex marriage, I feel there should be a balance point where personal and institutional religious belief deserves protection, beyond the protection of just the priest and the sanctuary. As I noted the pharmacist case is now decided law in IL, and they can be protected when their job clashes with faith, but I don't know whether the licensing functions of the state should have an equal parallel with other businesses, licensed or not. I am putting out examples to get feedback so that I might see why they either make sense or not as examples of balanced protection.

[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

[muon2]

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

I don't see a problem with the government clerk. If it is state law than state or local offices must provide the service. How that service is delivered is implementation at the office level.

My question is about private self-employed businesses. The individual proprietors in the pharmacist case were granted the ability to object to providing certain services on religious grounds. Should private sole proprietors be granted the same ability to refuse services for same sex weddings based on religious grounds? The question is relevant because as the bill is drafted, the IL court would likely reach a different conclusion than they did with the pharmacists.