Should religions be forced to perform and recognize same sex marriage?

[strawman]

The first lawsuit against the Church of England has been filed in the UK requesting that the courts force the church to change it's doctrine and allow same sex marriages to be performed and accepted by the church:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gay-dads-sue-church-england-2119665

Note that while this case is interesting and has merit in the UK, due to significant differences between UK and US law if something like this were to happen in the US it would look very different. For one, the Church of England is one of two state churchs. The laws permitting same sex marriage in the UK have "four ironclad" clauses which should prevent the legal recognition of same sex marriage from forcing religions, and in particular state religions, to accept and perform such marriages. However, as a state church "any major changes to doctrine, liturgy, or structure must have parliamentary approval"(wikipedia) which suggests that the reverse may be true - the church may have to reflect the laws of the UK as well. The other state church is seperate from the state and does not have this same condition.

 

[Shakey]

I don't think so, and I don't think they ever will be.

A somewhat related question. Should companies be forced to perform marraige services for same sex marriages if they believe it is wrong? Should a catering or flower shop be required to work at a gay marriage ceremony if they do other weddings even though their religion says it is wrong?

 

[Tress]

Nope. People can protest a church if it refuses to do so, but any church from any religion should not be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

I don't think so, and I don't think they ever will be.

A somewhat related question. Should companies be forced to perform marraige services for same sex marriages if they believe it is wrong? Should a catering or flower shop be required to work at a gay marriage ceremony if they do other weddings even though their religion says it is wrong?

Nope. Same goes for private companies. They just need to be prepared if people protest, someone organizes a boycott, etc.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Absolutely not. Religion is a private institute, it should be allowed to work in whatever function it wants to in regards to segregation.



Oh wait, that's right, any kind of segregation is bad. Catholicism/Christianity used to segregate blacks. Should we not have pushed for that to be considered wrong as well?

 

[Shakey]

Nope. Same goes for private companies. They just need to be prepared if people protest, someone organizes a boycott, etc.

I ask because in Minnesota the new same sex marriage law exempts churches, but not businesses or people from non-descrimination laws. There was a lot of hoopdey-do about it. I don't see how it's any different than not allowing businesses to refuse to work a wedding with mixed races, or races different from them.

 

[GasBandit]

Oh wait, that's right, any kind of segregation is bad. Catholicism/Christianity used to segregate blacks. Should we not have pushed for that to be considered wrong as well?

What do you mean "used to?" Churches still largely tend to not mix across cultural/ethnic lines. For many, what goes on in their church is part of their cultural identity, and it often doesn't mesh with the cultural identities of others. There are still de facto "white" and "black" churches, it's just not a Jim Crow thing. So I guess it's not so much the church separating the ethnicities as the ethnicities separating the churches, which is a different animal from forcing a church to perform actions to which they hold religious objections.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Since the government of England is the defacto leadership of The Church of England, the government could force them to perform the services.

But generally any religion should be able to have as its members whomever they want. -no matter how wrong they are about it. That is when as a parishioner, you will vote with your feet and find at church that will accept you.

But that reminds me of Groucho's, "I'd never join any club that would have me as a member."

 

[Tress]

I don't see how it's any different than not allowing businesses to refuse to work a wedding with mixed races, or races different from them.

I don't see how it's any different either. I think it's repugnant, but companies should have the right to refuse to serve customers they don't like based on race, religion, sexuality, etc.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't know enough about the law in the UK to comment on it. I know that the lack of "freedom of religion" was one of the big sticking points we had against them 200+ years ago, but I assume things change over time and there is some sort of change in the way that British law treats churches. From the summary Stienman provides in the original post, it seems to me that the UK is acting within its parliamentary bounds (I think that's how you say "within the limits of the constitution" in limey) to require the state church to perform same sex marriages. Obviously that dog wouldn't hunt in the US, where one of the first things we did was make sure government wasn't allowed to get involved with religion.

 

[strawman]

I don't see how it's any different either. I think it's repugnant, but companies should have the right to refuse to serve customers they don't like based on race, religion, sexuality, etc.

What about employee benefits? Should a religious organization opposed, for instance, to blood transfusions be allowed to provide insurance that doesn't cover blood tranfusions to their employees, and force those employees that want them to pay for them out of pocket, or buy additional insurance?

 

[Tress]

What about employee benefits? Should a religious organization opposed, for instance, to blood transfusions be allowed to provide insurance that doesn't cover blood tranfusions to their employees, and force those employees that want them to pay for them out of pocket, or buy additional insurance?

I think the example you really want to give is "Should an employer be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control if that employer is opposed to it?"

And I still say no in that case, and I still think that an employer has a right to do as they wish in this case. But that's only because I don't see free birth control as a natural right. Blood transfusions are a little bit more murky. If a blood transfusion is necessary to save a person's life, it should be covered at no additonal cost under all plans regardless of how the employer feels. Otherwise, I would be fine with a employer providing a plan that excluded (non-vital) transfusions.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I think the example you really want to give is "Should an employer be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control if that employer is opposed to it?"

And I still say no in that case, and I still think that an employer has a right to do as they wish in this case. But that's only because I don't see free birth control as a natural right. Blood transfusions are a little bit more murky. If a blood transfusion is necessary to save a person's life, it should be covered at no additonal cost under all plans regardless of how the employer feels. Otherwise, I would be fine with a employer providing a plan that excluded transfusions.

How about that branch of Christian Science that does not believe in medical care at all? That would not be a good boss to work for. Then again the Federal Government has stepped in on them on several occasions to be sure they get their children treated.

 

[strawman]

If a blood transfusion is necessary to save a person's life, it should be covered at no additonal cost under all plans regardless of how the employer feels.

I chose that example specifically because it wasn't likely to be as emotionally charged as reproductive medicine, but also because it is closer to "life saving and necessary" than it is to "lifestyle and elective" which would likely put more people on the fence, as it has you.

No religious organization has the right to commit human sacrifice as part of their religious observances, so we already accept that there are limits to religious freedom. The question, then, boils down to which medical services are considered so basic to human life that religious organizations are forced fund them with their resources regardless of their doctrine. Where does the line get drawn?

If same sex marriage advocates do indeed believe that marriage is a basic human right, equivalent to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then can the courts continue to allow religions to deny those rights to their employees, or members?

Even though "religious freedom" is enshrined in our constitution, that doesn't mean there's not a line, and that the line is immovable. It's quite possible that, at some point in the future, a similar lawsuit will be raised here and religious freedom will suffer.

Of course it will happen much more quickly in countries where there is no seperation between religion and state.

 

[Tress]

If same sex marriage advocates do indeed believe that marriage is a basic human right, equivalent to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then can the courts continue to allow religions to deny those rights to their employees, or members?

Yes. Just because a church won't perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple does not mean that couple can't get married at all. They just have to find someone else to do the ceremony. That's the important distinction in my mind.

It's quite possible that, at some point in the future, a similar lawsuit will be raised here and religious freedom will suffer.

I hope not. I honestly don't think this is a one or the other situation. Those two freedoms can coexist, despite what some people might think.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Wasn't there a supreme court case about this where a hotel refused to let black customers stay? I think it was titled something like "Heart o' the city".

 

[Tress]

Wasn't there a supreme court case about this where a hotel refused to let black customers stay? I think it was titled something like "Heart o' the city".

Interesting. I had never heard of this case before.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

 

[blotsfan]

A church shouldn't be forced to perform a gay marriage, but yes companies should have to proved same sex couples the same benefits as straight couples.

 

[tegid]

I don't see how it's any different either. I think it's repugnant, but companies should have the right to refuse to serve customers they don't like based on race, religion, sexuality, etc.

Didn't the Civil Rights Act outlaw that?

Enviado desde mi GT-I8190 usando Tapatalk 2

 

[Bubble181]

Religion is a personal matter, and a choice. If a church doesn't [want to] recognise a marriage because of sexuality, race, or whatever, you're perfectly free to find another church that better refelcts your personal views.
Should a mayor of a village be able to refuse to marry [gay/black/trans/etc] people? No, as it's a public service and it should be open to all.

Saying religions shouldn't be allowed to look at race or sexuality is, at least for now, slightly foolish. You might as well legislate female priests and open conversion to and from any church without imposing roadblocks on other [fill in the blank]. Catholicism, the Jewish faith, Orthodox Christians, Armenians, Coptic Chtristians - all of those religions would have to change and so on. And oh wait, the governemnt forcing a reiligion to do things their way is the government intruding where they don't belong.

Churches refusing to marry a black person to a white one (or whatever colour combo you want) are bass ackwards in my opinion, and I hope they'll die out and b e replaced with more open and accepting churches. I don't think they should be forced to do something against their beliefs, as long as they're not hurting anyone with it.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Religion is a personal matter, and a choice. If a church doesn't [want to] recognise a marriage because of sexuality, race, or whatever, you're perfectly free to find another church that better refelcts your personal views.
Should a mayor of a village be able to refuse to marry [gay/black/trans/etc] people? No, as it's a public service and it should be open to all.

That's what makes the situation in the UK a bit of a problem, since the church in question is a state church, something that doesn't exist in America (and I don't know what they have in Belgium.)

 

[Bowielee]

The important distinction between the UK and America, as has been pointed out is that churches are not and should not be government institutions in this country.

I have absolutely no issue with churches refusing to marry gay couples, in fact, if they don't want to, it would be wrong to force them to. I hate what Rev. Phelps and his incestuous breed do, but I support their right to do it. In America, there are plenty of churches who have no issue with gay people and many churches that already perform commitment ceremonies. There's absoutly nothing gained by forcing churches to perform these types of ceremonies.

 

[mikerc]

That's what makes the situation in the UK a bit of a problem, since the church in question is a state church, something that doesn't exist in America (and I don't know what they have in Belgium.)

Worth noting there are 3 conditions that have to be met before a church can perform a gay marriage in the UK:
1) That church's governing body would have to agree to allow their churches to perform them (no getting married in a Catholic church until the Vatican says it is OK)
2) The local minister would have to be willing (even if the Vatican is OK with it if your local Catholic minster isn't he doesn't have to let you get married in his church)
3) The church can't belong to the Church of England / Church of Wales

These churches are legally barred from performing gay marriages precisely so that trying to use the fact that they are state churches to force them to perform gay marriages will fail.

 

[GasBandit]

Maybe I'm not following what mroosc is saying... but I thought the Church of England wasn't Roman Catholic (IE, the Vatican doesn't set policy).

 

[Eriol]

Maybe I'm not following what mroosc is saying... but I thought the Church of England wasn't Roman Catholic (IE, the Vatican doesn't set policy).

That's correct. It's also known as the "Anglican" church in many countries.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Maybe I'm not following what mroosc is saying... but I thought the Church of England wasn't Roman Catholic (IE, the Vatican doesn't set policy).

I belive he's saying that churches other than the CoE and CoW would have to meet certain conditions (his first two points with examples in brackets), in addition to not being Church of England churches, in order to perform homosexual marriages.

 

[mikerc]

Maybe I'm not following what mroosc is saying... but I thought the Church of England wasn't Roman Catholic (IE, the Vatican doesn't set policy).

Didn't mean to imply it was - I was just using the Vatican as an example of a church that everyone would be familiar with (as opposed to say the Wee Free's). The third condition I mentioned is really the only one with relevance regarding the OP, I only brought up the other 2 for completeness.

 

[Necronic]

Not that it matters for the sake of this argument, but the CoE is still significantly Catholic. Which is a weird statement....

 

[PatrThom]

Should religions be forced to perform and recognize same sex marriage?

No.

Religion is a personal matter, and a choice.

...because this. I believe that when you subscribe to a religion, you are doing so because that religion is the one that most parallels what you personally believe. This means you will never be unhappy with your religion's views, since by definition they will always match (or at least be tolerably close to) your own. By my personal definition, a religion is 100% elective, which means you join it because you want to, because you believe in it, and because you want to be a part of a large group of people who believe as you do, and not because you are told to, forced to, or required to due to your job/country/duty/family/whatever.

It also means that a religion should never be "forced" to change any of its tenets through outside means/influence. If the practice of any religion causes it to come into major conflict with the remainder of society, then it will die on its own, hoisted on its own petard. Attrition should be the primary reformative force in any religion, as it is a sure indication that society's views are moving further from that religion's (though I relize that a religion may subdivide into sects as a way around this). Much as the following of sports teams will ebb and flow, the popularity of religions will swell and wane as their views fall out of favor or become more popular. Forcing a religion to adopt any sort of new policy makes about as much sense as an armchair quarterback trying to influence the plays his team will call. Likewise, the reverse is true, and this is what the Founding Fathers probably intended in the Bill of Rights, in that it makes about as much sense to mandate a state religion as it would to force everyone to root for the same sports team.

--Patrick

 

[Hailey Knight]

A religion shouldn't be forced to perform same-sex wedding.

An element of the state shouldn't be permitted to reject them.

Maybe the UK needs to make those two separate functions like a certain cool country did when they broke away from England centuries ago.

 

[figmentPez]

So, what about churches being forced to allow gay marriages to be performed on their property?

It's already happened.

 

[sixpackshaker]

So, what about churches being forced to allow gay marriages to be performed on their property?

It's already happened.

I want to know if that venue was ever used for non-religious weddings. If it is, then it should be allowed for a civil union. If it is strictly for religious weddings, then in my opinion, no.

 

[Shakey]

That isn't a church, and it's not real clear if a church actually owns it. It looks like it's owned by Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I don't think any clergy should be forced to perform a particular ceremony.

But I feel like if the churches want their space to continue being treated like private property, they should have to start paying taxes like everyone else who owns private property.

 

[strawman]

So, what about churches being forced to allow gay marriages to be performed on their property?

It's already happened.

If they only rented their facilities to church members, they would have been ok, but they offered their facilities to the public.

 

[Shawn]

The answer is no. Why? Because religions have a right to be exclusive. Just like any other non-government organization. If we make anti-gay religions let in gays/lesbians, then we might as well make the KKK let in blacks.
Do I support religions who won't marry gays/lesbians? Fuck no. But I support their freedom to do so.