Church Of Christ Files Nc Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit

[california boy]

 

No.  

 

I believe it would not be against the constitution (and therefore not in violation of anyone's rights) for the government to deny clergy the right to legally marry people.  Just like i wouldn't think it would be a big deal if the government stopped allowing ship captains to marry people.  Clergy and ship captains are just examples where the government has allowed specific groups of people to serve in that capacity.  These groups of people don't have some kind of constitutionally protected right to legally marry people. 

 

Beyond that though, i don't really see that it would violate anyone's rights if the government did decide to allow clergy to legally marry people in one church, but not in another if they had a logical reason to do so.  This happens all the time in Europe (where lds temple sealers are not granted the privilege of legally marrying anyone) and I don't find it to be a grave violation of anyone's humanity.

 

I was never talking about religious favoritism.  That interpretation is all you.  

One of the key arguments used by churches against legalizing gay marriage is that the government will force churches to marry gay couples.  In fact, I have heard this argument used as justification for the reason why the church got involved in prop 8.  Some say that the church was protecting it's choice to not marry gay couples.  While I completely disagree with this idea, I wonder if according to you, this idea has ANY traction at all.

 

If the government grants the privilege of a church to legally marry, then would taking away that right, (as in the case of the Church of Christ) be an attack on religion? Would the government be crossing the line between separation of church and state?  Would the government be crossing the line between separation of church and state if it withdrew the legal authority of any church that refused to marry a gay couple in states where it is legal?  Can you have it both ways?  Do you believe the government has the legal right to withdraw the privledge of legally marrying from a church that does not perform legal gay marriages?

[bluebell]

Do you believe the government has the legal right to withdraw the privledge of legally marrying from a church that does not perform legal gay marriages?

 

If the government decided that being willing to perform SSM marriages was one of the requirements that needed to be met before they would grant any clergy the ability to perform legal marriages, then yes the government would have the right to withdraw the privilege of performing legal marriages from such a church.

 

Since being able to perform legal marriages isn't a right granted by the constitution to all churches, the government is able to regulate that privilege however they want (within reason of course-they can't favor one religion over another).

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that a church might not fight such a change, but just like the person who tried to argue that they had the right not to cater a SSM and lost, it would more than likely be a losing battle in my opinion.

[california boy]

If the government decided that being willing to perform SSM marriages was one of the requirements that needed to be met before they would grant any clergy the ability to perform legal marriages, then yes the government would have the right to withdraw the privilege of performing legal marriages from such a church.

 

Since being able to perform legal marriages isn't a right granted by the constitution to all churches, the government is able to regulate that privilege however they want (within reason of course-they can't favor one religion over another).

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that a church might not fight such a change, but just like the person who tried to argue that they had the right not to cater a SSM and lost, it would more than likely be a losing battle in my opinion.

Interesting perspective.  I think I am at the other side of the spectrum.  I feel like the government should grant to all churches the right to marry who they wish.  I feel a bit uneasy with the government forcing a church to marry gays, and then punishing them by not allowing them to marry any of their members if they don't comply.  

 

But then the flip side, I don't think the government has the right to deny a church the right to marry a gay couple if they so choose.  Currently it is a criminal offense if a church marrys a gay couple in a state that gay marriage is not legal.

[bluebell]

Interesting perspective.  I think I am at the other side of the spectrum.  I feel like the government should grant to all churches the right to marry who they wish.  I feel a bit uneasy with the government forcing a church to marry gays, and then punishing them by not allowing them to marry any of their members if they don't comply.  

 

But then the flip side, I don't think the government has the right to deny a church the right to marry a gay couple if they so choose.  Currently it is a criminal offense if a church marrys a gay couple in a state that gay marriage is not legal.

 

I don't believe the government should be able to regulate who a church wants to marry either.  But i do believe the government should be able to regulate who a church wants to legally marry (within reason of course).

 

Since a legal marriage is a government contract (for lack of a better term) i think the government is very much within its rights to dictate who is allowed to issue those and who isn't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If the government decided that being willing to perform SSM marriages was one of the requirements that needed to be met before they would grant any clergy the ability to perform legal marriages, then yes the government would have the right to withdraw the privilege of performing legal marriages from such a church.

 

Since being able to perform legal marriages isn't a right granted by the constitution to all churches, the government is able to regulate that privilege however they want (within reason of course-they can't favor one religion over another).

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that a church might not fight such a change, but just like the person who tried to argue that they had the right not to cater a SSM and lost, it would more than likely be a losing battle in my opinion.

You think. Just don't say this too loud.

[california boy]

I don't believe the government should be able to regulate who a church wants to marry either.  But i do believe the government should be able to regulate who a church wants to legally marry (within reason of course).

 

Since a legal marriage is a government contract (for lack of a better term) i think the government is very much within its rights to dictate who is allowed to issue those and who isn't.

 

Well what is "within reason"  The majority of Americans think it is within reason that gay couples be allowed to marry legally by a church.  The Church of Christ thinks it is reasonable for it to be allowed to marry it's gay members.  They see no reason to deny those members the blessings of marriage.

 

If the government says that it is not up to the church to legally marry "within reason" who they want, then isn't the government dictating who the church marries?  And if you believe the government has the authority to tell a chuch who they can and can not legally marry, then couldn't the government tell churches they must marry gay couples?

 

When you defend this principle of government control over who a church marries, then you relinquish the right of a church to determine who they legally can marry to the government.  That seems a bit scary to me.

[bluebell]

Well what is "within reason"  The majority of Americans think it is within reason that gay couples be allowed to marry legally by a church.  The Church of Christ thinks it is reasonable for it to be allowed to marry it's gay members.  They see no reason to deny those members the blessings of marriage.

 

By within reason i mean without breaking any other laws.

 

If the government says that it is not up to the church to legally marry "within reason" who they want, then isn't the government dictating who the church marries?  And if you believe the government has the authority to tell a chuch who they can and can not legally marry, then couldn't the government tell churches they must marry gay couples?

 

 

If the government is dictating whether or not the church can act as a representative of the government and legally bind two people together in a government contract of marriage, that seems reasonable.  

 

And I've already said that i think it's very possible for the government to decide they have the authority to tell churches they have to marry gay couples if they are going to perform legal marriages.

 

When you defend this principle of government control over who a church marries, then you relinquish the right of a church to determine who they legally can marry to the government.  That seems a bit scary to me.

 

 

Where in the constitution does it give a church the right to legally marry people?  

[california boy]

By within reason i mean without breaking any other laws.

 

 

If the government is dictating whether or not the church can act as a representative of the government and legally bind two people together in a government contract of marriage, that seems reasonable.  

 

And I've already said that i think it's very possible for the government to decide they have the authority to tell churches they have to marry gay couples if they are going to perform legal marriages.

 

 

 

Where in the constitution does it give a church the right to legally marry people?  

 

I am not disagreeing with your statements, I am only saying that such a legal interpretation is not without consequences which you have acknowledged as well.