I wasn’t quite sure where to post this:
if the Supreme Court Case in June becomes the law of the land-and same sex unions are legal in all 50 states, will churches that refuse to perform these weddings be penalized, have their tax exempt status yanked-even be forced to close and pastors and priests jailed?
I do realize that now certain churches can refuse to perform certain weddings, as they should-I may add- For example the RCC requires an annulment if either party was married before, some fundamentalist Protestant churches(very few these days) still won’t marry someone if either party’s former spouse is still living-and no one challenges that.
But look at how florists, wedding planners, wedding chapels, ect are being sued and forced to close for refusing same-sex customers.
Will churches be persecuted for this?
For example, my church(WELS Lutheran) will surely refuse them but they can just go to the ELCA or Anglican church down the street, right?
Or will we, and certainly RCC churches, ect be challenged for political reasons?
I wasn’t quite sure where to post this:
Please settle down. Churches are NOT going to be persecuted for this.
It’s likely that churches will not be required to perform same sex weddings. They will be exempt from any such requirement, at least for now. However, church owned institutions such as schools or hospitals will likely not be exempt. They will have to recognize same sex marriages, hire same sex married teachers, etc., or face prosecution. As you noted, some businesses have already been sued and prosecuted for abiding by their religious beliefs rather than laws requiring recognition of same sex marriage.
It’s possible that it could come to that. Some people would certainly try to make that happen. But, the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It would violate the USC to force churches to comply with such a law. I can see an SSA “couple” trying to force the RCC (we’re the biggest target in sight) to “marry” them–although they might start with softer targets that they think will cave in to their demands.
SSA groups claim up one side and down the other that they merely want to be legally recognized as legitimate “couples”/“families,” but whenever groups that want no opposiiton of any kind get an inch they will go for the mile. I can see a huge struggle coming with this and other such issues. We need to be praying hard, voting for people who believe as we do, and standing up for the truth no matter how hard it might be or what man might try to do to us.
I’m sure people said that about states and countries recognizing so-called gay “marriage”, polygamy.
Look where we are today.
Entitlements beget entitlements beget entitlements.
I think it will come to that. I believe that they will be threatened or lose their tax exempt status. Freedom of speech and religion now seems to be only if you agree with the current views. If not you’re banned and labeled as a bigot. Maybe we will see the Church going underground at some point. The LGBT agenda seems to be intent on destroying those who disagree with their views.You can’t trust the politicians to object because they’re afraid of a backlash. It would be nice if ahead of time the UCCB would demonstrate some kind of objection if the Suprene court approves of this, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. It may be up to us Catholics and Christans who believe in the sanctity of marriage to fight back.
sorry I don’t “settle down” over important issue and our Christian faith.
what you said remains to be seen. I hope you’re right.
agree with you.
hope you’re right Della. I think it will come to a fight on our part.
sadly I think you are right about the church owned institutions. It’s already happening.
One of the main issues concerning this case to be revised by the SCOTUS in June is employment discrimination due to gay marriage. This concerns civil issues .
Anyone who challenged the Church’s right to administer the sacraments as they see fit would lose. Internal Church business is hands-off, per the US Constitution.
Yes. An inclusion of sexual orientation or gay marriage as a protected class could well result in, for example, Catholic elementary schools being required to hire teachers who are “married” to someone of the same sex. This would necessarily involve teaching students–by example of their teachers–that same sex relations, even same sex marriage, is okay with the Church.
I am pretty certain that we will face major challenges if Federal Law redefines marriage to include same sex relationships.
That, of course, is the real purpose of this entire “dust-up”. It has nothing to do with rights or discrimination. The real purpose of having same sex relationships recognized as a marriage is to accept and promote deviant (as in deviates from natural) sexual activity.
Since the Catholic Church is firm in its teaching regarding homosexuality and its definition of marriage, I expect homosexual activists to make highly sensationalized challenges against us.
The “logger-heads” will occur when courts have to decide which takes precedence… religious freedom or sexual orientation rights.
Can hardly wait…:mad:
I agree with you about the logger-heads. I think Jim G is right about Catholic(and Lutheran) schools being forced to hire people married to the same sex(and teaching that it’s right and normal)
As long as I’m allowed to worship God, I’m not too concerned about same-sex marriages. I predict that religious liberty will largely prevail when looked at as a whole.
Maybe you won’t be allowed to worship God…
Read a little Mexican history, especially about the Cristo Rey Rebellion that started less than 90 years ago. Religious liberty DID NOT prevail…Catholics were hanged on telephone poles.
Yes, there will be dark times ahead for those of us who support the traditional Catholic/Christian position on marriage.
However, I take comfort in the fact that these types of people have been trying to destroy Christianity since the times of Jesus, yet, it still survives and thrives.
U.S. CONSTITUTION OFFERS EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, Fourth Edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.
Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part of purpose of the Constitution itself.
“Equal protection” clauses are cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law. Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty…to…our posterity” (biological descendants) insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants) – and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.
That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.
Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.
Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.
This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.
Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.
While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution by which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily-formed contract – including so-called “same sex marriage” – can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.
Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions – given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Having said all the above, I am sufficiently realistic that it will take a moral and legal miracle for SCOTUS to make the proper decision as outlined above. Moreover, I have been told by someone well-placed to know whereof he speaks that we will lose the fight even to protect businesses from being forced to offer conscience-offending services to those demanding them.
Time for much prayer and fasting.
I am afraid that the current state of the federal courts is such that they care little about the Constitution or its original intent, and even less about posterity.