Why do some people think synagogues,churches, mosques can be forced to marry gays if gay marriage is legalized?

Are they just clueless about the 1st Amendment?Why do some people think synagogues,churches, mosques can be forced to marry gays if gay marriage is legalized?
The Churches are private institutions. They can refuse to marry anyone they choose.


Whatever your stance on gay marriage, to sell that the Govt would FORCE Churches to marry people is asinine.


So, I would say some people are clueless.


I think most people know this!Why do some people think synagogues,churches, mosques can be forced to marry gays if gay marriage is legalized?
So, you haven't heard of ';hate speech'; legislation, apparently. If the US C gives protected status to homosexuals, we won't be able to even preach against sexual immorality in our churches without fear of reprisal. There is much history to support this thought, so don't be calling people clueless.

Report Abuse

I am not clueless about the first amendment in the least. However, the question becomes yet again what constitutes discrimination and does the first amendment give religious organizations the right to discriminate based on sexual preference. You may think it is a non issue, but I would submit that it is a very valid question which would be almost assured of being tested.





Edit: people keep saying that the question is being asked by clueless people. This is not true. To the best of my knowledge exemptions of this type by churches have never faced strict legal challenge. However, if someone has actual case law to support their position I would like to see it. Whether or not such a challenge would be successful is another matter, but just dismissing the question out of hand based on the first amendment is not sufficient and amounts to dodging the issue.
When you talk about marry you do not talk about gay and talk about the men and women. The legal protection for gay minority does not mean the change of a social norm which is marry to a kind of personal relationship. You can not oppress any body to do any thing. The legal issue in this case is to protect all social groups to prevent any discrimination.
Excellent question. All that is really being debated is GOVERNMENT recognition of all marriages equally. Nobody cares if any particular religious group will marry gays or not. It's the Justice of the Peace that's important. Churches, mosques and synagogues are like private clubs that can kick people out for all kinds of discriminatory crap that isn't permissible in the commonly held political part of society. For example, the Mormon church still doesn't allow any women, NONE, to hold the high administrative positions. There are no female apostles there, but hey, those women are free to find a religious practice that respects them or none at all. The government isn't forcing them to change their patriarchal hierarchy. It'd be the same with marriage.





P.S. Blowbama is a fool. It was government that INTERJECTED ';God'; into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's. Originally, it was not there, and it should be removed again because I don't believe the person who wrote it ever gave permission for that word to be used. Also, seperation of church/state never backfires on liberals. If it were truly seperated, gays would be getting married at every courthouse in the nation. Screw religious marriages; they are a joke.
I assume the answer would be lack of a detailed knowledge of our Constitution and laws, something all too common.





Although I don't see much of a possibility of successful lawsuits of the type you mention, there is the very real chance of a governmental detriment to religions who don't accept same-sex partners (or homosexuality, at least) on another front. I am thinking of tax exemptions.





During the civil rights movement, the tax exemption regulations were amended to include a public policy exception - organizations otherwise exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code lost that exemption if they were racially discriminatory - even if it was a church.





Any legislation that in effect treated sexual orientation the same as race, in terms of anti-discrimination laws would most likely be followed by expanding the public policy exception to churches that were deemed to discriminate against gays. The logic - that the government withdraw tax exemption from private entities (even churches) that discriminate against government-defined categories - would seem to lead inescapably to this result. But the problem would be that by doing so, the government would be discriminating against one set of religious beliefs in relation to another. And, as opposed to racial discrimination, the situation would exist without the kind of national consensus about gay rights that we achieved about the injustice of racial discrimination, and with arguably a far more central tenet of the religion being at issue (since many religious leaders led the abolition and civil rights movements, I don't think much of an argument can be made that discrimination against African-Americans was in any way a fundamental teaching of the Judeo-Christian religions).





This could be a huge issue.





Here's an article I just found, and skimmed. I am not familiar with the author or the source, and this article might be biased. but it should give some background, for what it's worth:





http://www.becketfund.org/files/70e6d.pd鈥?/a>





PS Another link, from the same group. They obviously have their point of view, but it's at least one side of the story:





http://www.becketfund.org/files/34a97.pd鈥?/a>
I have no idea...maybe these people are not married or didn't get married in a church...Look, i had to go through a lot of hoops to get married in the church and then they could have still said no and I couldn't sue them for that and they knew that and I know that...if churches believe homosexuality is a sin they won't and don't have to marry you, just like they don't have to honor your divorce even if you go through the proper legal channels to divorce...I am still married but I know many people who have divorced and the church doesn't see them as divorced and they don't have too and they can excommunicate people from churches!!!!!!!!!!!!!





And Maggie, either you are really misunderstood what your church was saying about preforming marriages or you were just plian lying about it...
Holy Cow, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere here.





But some of us have been watching the Liberal SP movement and we know that there will be no end to it until Christians are made the silent minority in this nation.





Let me ask you this: Do you think the Constitution's framers envisioned the 14th amendment would be used for the right to legal abortion? Do you think they envisioned the Establishment Clause of the 1st to be used as a bludgeon against Christianity in the market place?





Adding (for my fiscal conservative friends who think the RR is wrong): Do you think the Constitution's framers envisioned the Commerce Clause would be used to over-run states' rights?





Conservatives are about the framers' intent.
They're deluded. Look, a church/synagogue/mosque would have every right to refuse to allow my me to get married there because I'm not a member of that institution. And I wouldn't WANT to marry in a house of worship anyway because I'm agnostic.








This is not about religious recognition of their union, but LEGAL representation.





Maybe they're scared, too.



Good point. If the government can take away the ten commandments from government buildings and take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance then churches can tell them NO too. Seperation of church and state, its what the liberals keep pushing, now its finally backfiring.
I have no idea. Religious institutions can discriminate all they want...it is no different from being a private club such as the Boy Scouts. They can refuse to marry whomever they choose. That's the whole point of separation of church and state, but they don't get that concept, either.
Marriage is a state and legal institution. Churches are unrelated except when individuals want pomp and pagentry for their ceremony.





Do you have a link for this or are you just pulling this out of the air?
ANY church can refuse to marry ANY couple...including a ';straight'; one.





Many will not without the couple first taking a marriage class, if the couple are already living together outside of marriage, if they are not of the same faith.
Yeah, and what about separation of church and state that they espouse. It seems to only work one way. The government has no business telling the church what the have to do.
churches were NOT being threatened - that was Mormon propaganda crap
Gays would call it a hate crime and discrimination. Our government has been distorting our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and I don't trust them. I'm not clueless...I'm realistic
Pretty much.





Many are also clueless that many churches and synagogues preform gay marriage as we speak.
From what I've seen here, they're clueless about just about everything.
Some churches won't even marry divorced people. These right-wingers are very clueless and some are deliberately so.
Because they are clueless and misinformed.
Bingo! They are clueless about the first amendment and the SCOTUS.
Homophobia overpowers rational thought.
yes, they are completely clueless and gullible.
Many of those that vote are not the brightest lights on the Menorah, or the Christmas tree.
WE ARE NOT CLUELESS! This is reality! Churches were being threatened! My church was looking ahead at possible not performing ANY marriages.





Looking at it logically, if a church refused to perform a marriage for one couple (because they are gay) but would perform a marriage for someone else, the gay couple would call that discrimination and could sue.





EDIT: Try to remember that anybody can sue anybody! You may claim that the 1st amendment will stop this type of lawsuit but I am talking reality and I have personal knowledge that my church was holding off on setting up ANY weddings until after the passage of prop 8. I don't care what you say about us being clueless but you are wrong! Churches would have to perform gay marriage if they performed traditional marriages. They could be sued for discrimination!





The lawsuit against the Boy Scouts is not on point and is different since it's a ';private organization.'; not a church. It involved membership in the BSA.





BTW, I HAVE READ THE CONSTITUTION!
Why not ?


';Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 鈥淔or in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 鈥淲hy do you look at the speck that is in your brother鈥檚 eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 鈥淥r how can you say to your brother, 鈥楲et me take the speck out of your eye,鈥?and behold, the log is in your own eye? 鈥淵ou hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother鈥檚 eye. ';


Matthew 7:1-7:5
I don't remember anyone saying that they believed that? It's obviously untrue, first amendment or not.Even if it were true, I can't imagine any gay couple wanting to get married in a place that only accepts them under duress.