House speaker proposes Pastor’s Protection Act

DAWSONVILLE — State lawmakers are looking at a proposal that would protect clergy from being required to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Speaker of the House David Ralston, a Republican from Blue Ridge, announced his support for a Pastor’s Protection Act in Georgia during the House Republican Caucus on Jekyll Island.

“We will reinforce our commitment to the separation of church and state as well as reaffirm the right of the clergy to carry out their duties as their religious beliefs, not government, prescribes,” Ralston said in a statement.

The proposed bill would clarify that state government will not require clergy to perform any marriage ceremony that conflicts with their religious doctrine.

forsythnews.com/section/1/article/27814/

Thanks for this. I plan to share the link with my state senator here in NC.

Jon

How many Supreme Court decisions does it take to convince the people that legislation is worthless in the face of a court hostile to religion, especially Christianity?

Praying it works…

“It’s clear they are protected under the 1st amendment but I think it’s important to codify that into the Georgia law.” (clipped from link)

This is important to codify into the law of every state so we may protect our religious freedom. God forbid someday the state will force our priests(pastors) to perform same sex marriage or whatever else becomes deemed as marriage.

Joining you in prayer.

St Michael the Archangel defend us in battle…

Thanks for sharing this link.

Mary.

Weird. I think it is like sponsoring a bill to prevent the quartering of British soldiers in Georgia, just to codify it into law. But I have no reason to point fingers. We just had a politician try to pass a resolution to stop the UN from taking over the Alamo. :smiley:

Pastors have never been required to marry anyone, baptize anyone, confirm anyone, or ordain anyone.

Remember back when it was liberals who specialized in symbolism over substance?

You underestimate the courts’ ability to rationalize.

However, I don’t underestimate the power of prayer!~:D

Mary.

LOL. Got to keep those British soldiers in line.

You are quite correct, tho, in that clergy are not, nor have they ever been, required to baptize, confirm, ordain, nor marry anyone they deem unsuitable.

Why are people so up in arms?

You are going to need a very thick carpet.

Fear. It is always easier (and more profitable) to promote fear than probably reality. It is not just Democrats of whom it can be said, never let a good crisis go to waste. The horrible decision of the Supreme Court will bring out all the politicians and pundits jockeying for the spotlight.

Won’t work, or rather it should not work.

“Congress shall make NO law concerning religion. . .”

Because the SSM issue has been framed in terms of federal “civil rights,” and that slope is a slippery one indeed, subject to all sorts of bureaucratic overreaching. Mrs. Clinton, for one, is on record as saying “Religion will have to change.” (You can look that up.) Punitive measures such as removing tax exemptions from “non-conforming” religious bodies are all too easy to imagine.

“…concerning an ESTABLISHMENT of religion…” i.e. not setting up an official established church.

Tax exemptions is the least of the problems. There will be civil rights lawsuits against pastors/priests, their parishes, and their institutional bodies.

For example, from the LCMS website:

Q: In light of all the recent publicity about same-sex marriage, where does the LCMS stand on the issue?

A: God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church (Eph. 5:32). Homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24, 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9–20; 1 Tim. 1:10) as contrary to the Creator’s design (Rom. 1:26–27). The LCMS affirms that such behavior is “intrinsically sinful” and that, “on the basis of Scripture, marriage [is] the lifelong union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:2-24; Matt. 19:5-6)” (2004 Res. 3-05A). It has also urged its members “to give a public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual ‘marriage’ ” (2004 Res. 3-05A). At the same time, the Synod firmly believes "the redeeming love of Christ, which rescues humanity from sin, death, and the power of Satan, is offered to all through repentance and faith in Christ, regardless of the nature of their sinfulness” (1992 Res. 3-12A). The Synod developed a Law/Gospel ministry plan for use in ministry to those who are troubled by homosexual desires, Ministry to Homosexuals and Their Families.

Highlighting is mine.

Merely stating that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, can and, I believe, will be the target of lawsuits because it is “hate speech” and discriminatory.

Jon

What law bans “hate speech?” Who decides what constitutes it?

“Discriminatory”? Everyone discriminates many times every day.

“The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars. Blacks, women, and 18-year-olds have the right to vote, while aliens and felons do not.” – Lino Graglia, Professor of Constitutional Law, UTA.

Absolutely agree. Tell that to the progressives. They already refer to the Church not performing SSM as “discriminatory”. We have already heard, in front of the SCOTUS, progressives state that they will be looking into the comparison of religious institutions that do not approve of SSM as being in the same category as Bob Jones University. Some universities, ostensibly Christian, are changing their housing arrangements, and conduct codes, preemptively to avoid the coming law suits.

Jon

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.