Ask Me Help Desk - Does Gay Marriage Infringe on Your Religious Liberty?

Does Gay Marriage Infringe on Your Religious Liberty?

One of the arguments that some use to oppose gay marriage is that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs." (quote from Michelle Bachman). I would like to ask anyone who shares the belief that gay marriage imposes on their religious liberty - how does it do so? It seems to me that this is like saying that the presence of, say, a Hindu temple in town infringes on the religious liberty of Christians living in that town. Obviously Christians don't believe in Hinduism, but I've not heard anyone claim that the presence of a Hindu temple infringes on their own religious liberty. So, how does this argument work with gay marriage? Please don't get into moral arguments of gay life style, but rather stick to how the presence of a legally-married (as recognized by the state) gay couple can infringe on your liberty. Thanks!

Isn't that like saying a Steakhouse infringes on someone's liberty to be vegan or vegetarian?

You do have protected rights, at least in the USA you do. Where you lose that protection is when your rights are applied to the next person. You have the freedom to be religious and believe what you want to believe. You don't have the right to force it on others.

One way that is feared by many and that has already been taking place is that people are forced to participate even when it is against their own religion. Another is that some churches could be forced out of existence because of law suits should they refuse to participate in a gay marriage. It is more a matter of a group pushing an agenda then it is about a religious belief. Many saw how powerful the gay lobby was in Washington yet they didn't pursue the rights through civil union. Instead the group sought elevation into the rhelm that has been through the centuries held by men and women.

You comparison of a Hindu temple doesn't hold the same merrit as they aren't suing other churches nor non hindu to force them to participate against their beliefs.

Isn't suing a church a no thrills ticket to hell?

All the gay community wants is the same rights and recognitions as straight people have. Having those rights infringes on no one as far as I can tell. But I haven't spent a lot of time considering it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

One way that is feared by many and that has already been taking place is that people are forced to participate even when it is against thier own religion.

Please cite an example where anyone is "forced to participate" with respect to gay marriage. I know of no cases where someone has been forced to marry a person of the same sex!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

Another is that some churchs could be forced out of existance because of law suits should they refuse to participate in a gay marriage.

Please cite an example where any church has ever been forced to perform any religious ceremony against its wishes. For example it is against Roman Catholic church policy to wed people who are either not RC or have not agreed to raise their children in the RC church, but I'm not aware of them ever being sued over this. Are you aware of any such law suits in any of the 12 states where gay marriage is already legal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

It is more a matter of a group pushing an agenda then it is about a religious belief. Many saw how powerful the gay lobby was in Washington yet they didnt persue the rights through civil union. Instead the group sought elevation into the rhelm that has been through the centuries held by men and women.

Good point - I think the civil union route would have been just fine except for the extreme entanglement of the word "marriage" in tens of thousands of laws and regulations on the books at all levels of local, city, county, state, and federal government. This has turned "marriage" into a legal status as much (or more) than a religious one. Perhaps it was a mistake for the government to ever get in the marriage business, and they should have used the term "civil union" for all legal unions for the past 237 years. But unfortunately that's not what happened, so we're stuck with "marriage" being a legal term. And in any event - this point doesn't address how gay marriage infringes on your liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

You comparison of a Hindu temple doesnt hold the same merrit as they arent suing other churchs nor non hindu to force them to participate against thier beliefs.

Please cite an example where a church has been sued to "participate" in a gay rights issue. What law suits have their been to force churches to "participate against their beliefs" with respect to gay rights issues? Again, we have 12 states with some experience in this area so presuambly there would be evidence of this happening already.

Here is one example. This florist is being sued over her convictions.

Washington State Florist Sued for Snubbing Gay Wedding

Christian florist being sued in US over gay marriage stance | News | The Christian Institute

Florist who refused to sell flowers for gay couple's wedding is sued for a SECOND time over discrimination claims | Mail Online

No church should be forced into a situation of conducting a ceremony for gay people, it makes an absolute sham of their beliefs and for what a minority who obviously don't share their beliefs anyway, in the same way a business should be able to choose who they have as customers, it's not that long ago people thought it okay in your country to deny service to coloureds, the only way gays can be recognised is if they make themselves obvious by their behaviourand obviously obnoious along with it

Here's one of those links you were asking for, ebaines. No, the gays aren't sueing, it's worse than that.

Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption

If this happens I'm filing IRS complaints against every Black preacher in politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

in the same way a business should be able to choose who they have as customers,

I'm confused - are you saying it's OK for a business to discriminate on the basis of race? Really?

But we're getting off topic - I asked how gay marriage infringes on your religious liberty. Does serving married gays (not just gays per se) in your place of business do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Here's one of those links you were asking for, ebaines. No, the gays aren't sueing, it's worse than that.

Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption

If this happens I'm filing IRS complaints against every Black preacher in politics.

I think most would agree that no organization with 501(c)(3) tax status should be allowed to politic on behalf of a political campaign or candidate. You would certainly object to a "charity" that politics for Nancy Pelosi. But we're getting off topic - how does this affect your religious liberty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

But we're getting off topic - I asked how gay marriage infringes on your religious liberty. Does serving married gays (not just gays per se) in your place of business do that?

Here is where it starts to go all wrong. When your talking non-religious activity such as getting a car repaired or laundering clothes or other non-religious services then that is very different then crossing a line that is considered religious to the person doing the serving.

Would you expect a Muslim butcher to carry your favorite pork roast? Or your local Jewish deli to carry non kosher foods? Of course you don't. The florest had sold flowers many times to the customers in question. Then came the religious aspect and she refused to participate. In effect her religious freedom was abridged. So when you talk about it in a broad sense it boils down to the person performing the service and the nature of that service.

It comes down to stop all this pandering to minorities and that includes gays. They have to take on the values of the society and not the other way around.

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

Many debates have raged over your viewpoint, Joy, since the Dark Ages when the Church WAS the State. Most governments want Divine authority to this day. That's why the people in those governments are there. They want to be rulers.

ebaines, MY religious liberty has been under attack since Constantine converted. We remain.

Blessed be.

Does Gay Marriage Infringe on Your Religous Liberty?

NO.

That's your opinion

Yep!!

Look you legalise gay marriage over there and all the gays here will piss off and your welcome

What does that have to do with you?

What does what have to do with me?

It doesn't. For gays it could be a contract or "marriage" in the eyes of law but church or any other religious body should not be forced to believe the same. I'm not against gay rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joypulv

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

I couldn't agree more .

Quote:

Originally Posted by smkanand

it doesn't. for gays it could be a contract or "marriage" in the eyes of law but church or any other religious body should not be forced to believe the same. I'm not against gay rights.

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

First off - Yankees? UGH. Go REDS!!

Second - While I agree with you which is odd because I am not a member of the "straights", not allowing people who are gay to marry for every reason the straights do keeps them as second class citizens. Is that right? If my partner and I choose to go down that path, I have no problem calling it a civil union. But I am in the minority in the non-straights group.

Quote:

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

I'm not.

Old ideas and traditions die hard.

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religious context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religious liberty as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver2011

First off - Yankees? UGH. Go REDS!!!

Second - While I agree with you which is odd because I am not a member of the "straights", not allowing people who are gay to marry for every reason the straights do keeps them as second class citizens. Is that right? If my partner and I choose to go down that path, I have no problem calling it a civil union. But I am in the minority in the non-straights group.

No ,I don't think that makes gays 2nd class citizens .I'm not opposed for gays getting exactly the same legal rights as straights when they join in partnership . That is why I also agreed that it would be best if the state got out of the marriage business.

In my mind allowing gay couples to enjoy the same perks as the straighties through marriage is a victimless event therefore it cannot infringe on any rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religous context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religous liberty as well?

I agree with cdad that businesses have been forced to participate in religious ceremony that they oppose;and if they don't they are violating some civil right, In those cases ,indeed their religious liberty is being violated .

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religous context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religous liberty as well?

What I have issue with is the state redefining the religious tradition of marriage. The state is supposed to stay out of religious matters, but this redefinition is an attack on the very basis of religious tradition. I fully expect that this move will lead to state enforced gay unions in churches in the name of freedom. You would deny the freedom of the many for the sake of a supposed freedom of a few

Quote:

will lead to state enforced gay unions in churches

I don't think many want that at all. If if were not the case and it were about civil unions, does that make it better?

Quote:

that businesses have been forced to participate in religious ceremony that they oppose

NO business should be forced into ANY religious ceremony.

Life was so much easier when gays stayed in the closet out of fear. Much like minorities staying in their "place". That world is dying as more gays integrate into the institutions of general society and no longer settle for separate but equal, or the fringe of being a first class citizen.

They want what everyone wants FULL freedom to pursue their own happiness with whomever they please and the benefits that come with it. Some don't like being equal with a minority, especially a gay one. They have a right I think not to accept it. But they cannot deny anyone anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

NO business should be forced into ANY religious ceremony.

I agree. I also agree that a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It should stay that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

...I also agreed that it would be best if the state got out of the marriage business.

Unfortunately that ship has sailed. Can't go back now. It is an absolute impracticality to rewrite all laws, rules, regulations, contracts, insurance polies, etc etc for all towns, counties, states, and federal government to add "and civil union" wherever the term "marriage" occurs. You can't do it by fiat through any single law, short of an amendment to the Constitution. So we are stuck with having to use the word "marriage" as a legal term in matters of law..

Not that hard at all . State marriages that have already occurred need not change. And since marriage is a state issue anyway,no amendement is required. . (DOMA has been defeated in Federal Court 8 times and will not survive SCOTUS )
All it really takes is one law that says 'as of this date ' all unions sanctioned by the state shall be called "civil unions" for the purpose of contract and assigning legal benefits (or some legaleze version of that ) .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

All it really takes is one law that says 'as of this date ' all unions sanctioned by the state shall be called "civil unions" for the purpose of contract and assigning legal benefits (or some legaleze version of that ) .

Unfortunately that doesn't work. This "one law" would have to be passed at the federal level in order to apply to federal income tax, social security benefits, medicare and medicaid, pension plans, etc; at the state level in order to apply to state laws regarding state income tax, property rights, estate planning and inheritance, insurance contracts, welfare, etc; at the county and town level to cover local ordinances such as issuing marriage licenses, property tax and "homesteading" issues. And it would require all 50 states agree to stop talking about marriage and adopt civil unions - what's the chance of that happening?

Call it a marriage, law has that authority but religious institutions also have their rights. Same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature. Gays should have right to get married according to law but religious authorities has their own space.

Some religious institutions and churches do indeed perform gay marriages but the tick is if the couples relocate to where gay marriage from another state is not recognized.