Interesting Morning At Church

[naturalmwa]

Yes, there are many governmental actions contracted out to private organizations. No, they don't all need to become public (although some should).

Take private schools. If you want to be able to discriminate about who or what you teach and you are a private school, that's perfectly fine. You get no subsidies, no vouchers, no special tax breaks. And, if you don't teach approved subject matter, no official accreditation. I'm sure plenty of private schools would function effectively under those terms, and could be excellent schools.

So what's the difference, you ask. In the case of the private school, the business is providing a product and there's no harm (except maybe to some students) in letting the market decide the value of that product.

But in the case of marriage, what's being provided is approval of a contract that is binding on more than just the people getting married. It's a societal commitment that provides benefits that have to be honored or paid for by other members of society. Why should bigots who refuse to apply the laws equally to all be entrusted with that power?

Those religious organizations who don't want to apply the law equally shouldn't be in the position to apply that law at all. Let them perform their private bonding rituals as they see fit and let the market decide how much to value their "marriages" - if at all.

Some of us might not place much value in marriages performed by snake worshipers who speak in tongues, for example.

I don't want the market having any say in the value of a marriage. That's the principle we just fought to defeat. Frankly I think getting all these volunteers to do government paperwork for free is ingenious. How many thousands of dollars do you think that saves a city each year? Doesn't the bible have some references to census and taxes? Maybe we could get churches to fill those out for their people too.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What part of "religious ceremony" vs. "legal contract" (which MUST be filed with the clerk of court REGARDLESS of whether you hold a ceremony or not) is too difficult for you to understand here?

The 'ceremony' is meaningless in the eyes of the law.

Huh?

You need to read my comments a bit more closely.

I am saying that religious bigots cannot be allowed to perform the legal contract. Then can perform whatever religious rituals they wish and call them what they wish, but they won't be legal marriages.

 

[jscott78]

I have a lot of ties to the Methodist church and they are extremely left wing liberal, at least the ones are I know of

yea, they tend to be decent people. Sorry.

 

[Joes Place]

There are plenty of Christian churches willing to marry gay people.

Again, you DO NOT need any CHURCH to go down to the courthouse and fill out a marriage certificate and file it. You need a WITNESS to cosign it.

 

[Joes Place]

Huh?

You need to read my comments a bit more closely.

I am saying that religious bigots cannot be allowed to perform the legal contract. Then can perform whatever religious rituals they wish and call them what they wish, but they won't be legal marriages.

The ceremony, or whatever 'bigot' is there, is irrelevant. You can have your most bigoted, racist friends show up at the courthouse and sign as witnesses to your marriage certificate, and the law doesn't care.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

yea, they tend to be decent people. Sorry.

sorry they are decent or sorry I've grown up with them

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't want the market having any say in the value of a marriage. That's the principle we just fought to defeat. Frankly I think getting all these volunteers to do government paperwork for free is ingenious. How many thousands of dollars do you think that saves a city each year? Doesn't the bible have some references to census and taxes? Maybe we could get churches to fill those out for their people too.

Good grief. I must be doing something wrong if 2 of our smarter posters are having trouble understanding what I am saying.

Do you value a degree from Podunk U as much as one from MIT? Do you value an award from the Westboro folks as much as one from the Nobel folks or the Pulitzer folks? That's the kind of market value I'm talking about.

Right now, marriages performed by ministers who scream about gays being an abomination carry exactly as much legal weight as those performed by the Chief Justice. But if religious bigots who insist on their right to refuse to marry gays are stripped of their authority to perform legal marriages, as I suggest should be the case, then their superstitious rituals will have to stand on their own in the marketplace of public approbation.

I don't know if it will actually make any difference, or bring about any improvement but I am quite prepared to look down my nose at those married in the more ridiculous religious venues. Your wedding was blessed by the Great Turtle? A guy wearing magic underpants? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? These are not equally credible.

 

[mstp1992]

Our ministerial staff drafted a statement condemning the SCOTUS decision concerning gay marriage. In that statement the traditional interpretation of marriage was defined and reaffirmed. Our minister will not perform any same sex marriages...and as he stated there have been many hetero marriages he has declined because the ceremonies in question were not within the parameters of Christian beliefs. As to everything else he cautioned the congregation to refrain from "aggressive" and "confrontational" discussion...as he stated we are in the business of accepting all people...just not in accepting behaviors not in line with God's teachings. I thought it was a very valid and powerful statement.

I have no problem with churches deciding not to perform same-sex marriages. Absolutely, nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I think Kennedy alluded to that in his majority opinion.

I also have no problem with your church drafting a condemnation of the SCOTUS ruling. I can tell you right now there have been instances in which organizations I belong to have done something similar. Nothing will change the ruling (or law, or funding, or whatever the situation), but an organization can formally let their disapproval be known in a non-confrontational manner.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The ceremony, or whatever 'bigot' is there, is irrelevant. You can have your most bigoted, racist friends show up at the courthouse and sign as witnesses to your marriage certificate, and the law doesn't care.

OK, you are just ignoring what I've been saying this thread (and other threads).

 

[Joes Place]

OK, you are just ignoring what I've been saying this thread (and other threads).

Ummm....no, I've responded to you trying to explain that there IS NO 'religious bigot' performing any ceremony. Two people can show up at the county courthouse with two witnesses to testify to their identities, and they all sign a piece of paper and the couple walks away legally 'married'.

I simply do not understand why you are insisting that any member of any church should be excluded from being a witness on that paperwork? No government entity cares if that co-signing witness is a gun freak, an African American, a GreenPeace wacko, a Tea Party wacko, a vegetarian, a religious bigot, a racist bigot, a cross-dresser or a single mom with 14 kids on welfare.

It is all legally irrelevant. And you do NOT need any church ceremony to get married, as that is a religious practice which IS protected by the Bill of Rights 100%.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Ummm....no, I've responded to you trying to explain that there IS NO 'religious bigot' performing any ceremony. Two people can show up at the county courthouse with two witnesses to testify to their identities, and they all sign a piece of paper and the couple walks away legally 'married'.

I simply do not understand why you are insisting that any member of any church should be excluded from being a witness on that paperwork? No government entity cares if that co-signing witness is a gun freak, an African American, a GreenPeace wacko, a Tea Party wacko, a vegetarian, a religious bigot, a racist bigot, a cross-dresser or a single mom with 14 kids on welfare.

It is all legally irrelevant. And you do NOT need any church ceremony to get married, as that is a religious practice which IS protected by the Bill of Rights 100%.

so, do you think Williamson county in TX has the right to refuse to marry two dudes? or refuse to issue the license? they did just that , on Friday. reports here on the radio said.

this is why I'd rather see a national marriage license rather than the feds coming after these counties at gunpoint. do you think the feds will invade Williamson county and force them to do the ceremony?

 

[Joes Place]

OK, you are just ignoring what I've been saying this thread (and other threads).

Maybe I need to state it this way:

You can have the fanciest wedding in the biggest church with 1000 attendees and the lead Bishop of whatever your religious institution performing the religious ceremony, BUT if NO ONE signs the marriage contract AND files it with the Clerk of Court, you ARE NOT legally married.

The Church and the 1000 people in the congregation can call you husband and wife, and you can present yourself as husband and wife, BUT you will have NO LEGAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS in the eyes of the law UNTIL you file that document.

 

[Joes Place]

so, do you think Williamson county in TX has the right to refuse to marry two dudes? or refuse to issue the license? they did just that , on Friday. reports here on the radio said.

They are going to end up in contempt, and could possibly cost their constituent taxpayers A LOT of money in the process.

So, if that's who you want fiscally running your local County Courthouse operations, by all means, vote them back in. Your county will end up bankrupt from simply summary judgments in federal courts.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Maybe I need to state it this way:

You can have the fanciest wedding in the biggest church with 1000 attendees and the lead Bishop of whatever your religious institution performing the religious ceremony, BUT if NO ONE signs the marriage contract AND files it with the Clerk of Court, you ARE NOT legally married.

The Church and the 1000 people in the congregation can call you husband and wife, and you can present yourself as husband and wife, BUT you will have NO LEGAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS in the eyes of the law UNTIL you file that document.

I dunno about that. Especially in this state, with common law marriage laws. My neighbor across the street, he decides to die on a motorcycle, his ho of a gf decides they were married, and poof, she gets all his stuff. common law married. there was no time limit like 6 months living together or anything. TX common law is loose

that brings up a great point: can't gheys just all of a sudden now declare they common law married? and can't they do this without a license in TX like the other straights have done?? hmmmmmm

 

[TexMichFan]

I imagine this is just a rhetorical point, I'd be careful about this position. Aren't there a good many quasi governmental actions that are de facto contracted out to private organizations? Do we really expect all these private organizations to now become public? Extending this logic wouldn't all private schools need to admit anyone? Things that are open to the public, should have to follow the public ethos. Things closed to the public should be allowed to follow their private ethos IMO.

Getting closer to a State religion all the time. WWJD is just taking the next logical step to bring religion in line with what the State believes they should do.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

They are going to end up in contempt, and could possibly cost their constituent taxpayers A LOT of money in the process.

So, if that's who you want fiscally running your local County Courthouse operations, by all means, vote them back in. Your county will end up bankrupt from simply summary judgments in federal courts.

contempt of court? the supreme court? they are clowns. are they gonna send in the military? the us marshalls? bring it!! ha ha

 

[joelbc1]

Our ministerial staff drafted a statement condemning the SCOTUS decision concerning gay marriage. In that statement the traditional interpretation of marriage was defined and reaffirmed. Our minister will not perform any same sex marriages...and as he stated there have been many hetero marriages he has declined because the ceremonies in question were not within the parameters of Christian beliefs. As to everything else he cautioned the congregation to refrain from "aggressive" and "confrontational" discussion...as he stated we are in the business of accepting all people...just not in accepting behaviors not in line with God's teachings. I thought it was a very valid and powerful statement.

And a church really has no business interjecting political issues with its moral view. They really don't. Sorry...it is unexceptable. You minister can do what he feels he must do. However, I find such intolerance rather comedic...considering his/her position. Does he baptize babies born/conceived out of wedlock?

 

[wildcatdad]

Our ministerial staff drafted a statement condemning the SCOTUS decision concerning gay marriage. In that statement the traditional interpretation of marriage was defined and reaffirmed. Our minister will not perform any same sex marriages...and as he stated there have been many hetero marriages he has declined because the ceremonies in question were not within the parameters of Christian beliefs. As to everything else he cautioned the congregation to refrain from "aggressive" and "confrontational" discussion...as he stated we are in the business of accepting all people...just not in accepting behaviors not in line with God's teachings. I thought it was a very valid and powerful statement.

Our ministerial staff drafted a statement condemning the SCOTUS decision concerning gay marriage. In that statement the traditional interpretation of marriage was defined and reaffirmed. Our minister will not perform any same sex marriages...and as he stated there have been many hetero marriages he has declined because the ceremonies in question were not within the parameters of Christian beliefs. As to everything else he cautioned the congregation to refrain from "aggressive" and "confrontational" discussion...as he stated we are in the business of accepting all people...just not in accepting behaviors not in line with God's teachings. I thought it was a very valid and powerful statement.

Your minister missed a great opportunity to show his Christian Faith and focus on some important functions of the Faith. Maybe he is more politician than religious leader.

Ask his to read this next Sunday and get his flock back on track.

http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/

 

[ottumwan in tx]

And a church really has no business interjecting political issues with its moral view. They really don't. Sorry...it is unexceptable. You minister can do what he feels he must do. However, I find such intolerance rather comedic...considering his/her position. Does he baptize babies born/conceived out of wedlock?

so a church can never have any community of folks with the same political views. funny, that's how this nation got started. we had a nation of England, royalty, the supreme rulers, trying to make us adhere to their political and church views, the church of England. We broke away, came here, started our own free country with our church. or freedom to not be in a church. freedom from the church of England. But, certain churches became a community of like minded people, like minded politically. Different than the political beliefs of England, but with their own political view. Are you saying this country never should have been founded?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Your minister missed a great opportunity to show his Christian Faith and focus on some important functions of the Faith. Maybe he is more politician than religious leader.

Ask his to read this next Sunday and get his flock back on track.

http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/

so only Obama and Sharpton can do politics and religion, nobody else can?

 

[naturalmwa]

I thought it was very accepting...we aren't turning these people away...we just aren't going to perform their marriage ceremonies...and we aren't going to accept this behavior as being in line with church doctrine. If others don't like it let them go elsewhere. It is sin...not the only sin but sin nonetheless. Everyone sins...Christians as well. I lusted after my female server in tight jeans at Ruby Tuesday's today...

Do you think that sin should invalidate your marriage?

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Do you think that sin should invalidate your marriage?

Nope...and I know where you are going with this.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Your minister missed a great opportunity to show his Christian Faith and focus on some important functions of the Faith. Maybe he is more politician than religious leader.

Ask his to read this next Sunday and get his flock back on track.

http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/

My pastor isn't Al Sharpton...or Jeremiah Wright.

 

[wildcatdad]

so only Obama and Sharpton can do politics and religion, nobody else can?

Your Church may direct as many of its energies as it wants to politics. My Church is poor enough that we cannot do all the things that Christ has asked us to do. The choice is clearly yours.

 

[rocketclone]

And a church really has no business interjecting political issues with its moral view. They really don't. Sorry...it is unexceptable. You minister can do what he feels he must do. However, I find such intolerance rather comedic...considering his/her position. Does he baptize babies born/conceived out of wedlock?

The child had nothing to do with this. Bad example. The bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin. The church does not have to participate in the sin.

 

[rocketclone]

Your Church may direct as many of its energies as it wants to politics. My Church is poor enough that we cannot do all the things that Christ has asked us to do. The choice is clearly yours.

It's not the church, it's the bible that addresses it.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

if it were not for politics: there would be no church in America, there would be no america

 

[naturalmwa]

Nope...and I know where you are going with this.

Smart man. So let's go there. Why should my sin make my family invalid but yours shouldn't? Some other faithful poster commented that all sins are equal, is that your belief too?

 

[naturalmwa]

The child had nothing to do with this. Bad example. The bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin. The church does not have to participate in the sin.

It's not really as clear as you have been lead to believe, but it's silent on homosexual marriage.

 

[wildcatdad]

if it were not for politics: there would be no church in America, there would be no america

I posted an article. Write a complaint to the author.

 

[swagsurfer02]

I posted an article. Write a complaint to the author.

Crazy cousin Eddie is back!!!

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Yeah, because people entering committed and lifelong relationships with each other, full of love, respect, and devotion, sure is un-Christian.

What a shitty religion.

Sorry you feel that way. It's not God's design for a marriage. Contrary to current popular opinion there is wisdom behind it. It is the foundation for successful child raising, and provides stability for society.

Any chance a gay couple could enter into a committed and lifelong relationship with each other, full of love, respect, and devotion, yet remain unmarried? Do they need to be married for that?

 

[naturalmwa]

Sorry you feel that way. It's not God's design for a marriage. Contrary to current popular opinion there is wisdom behind it. It is the foundation for successful child raising, and provides stability for society.

Any chance a gay couple could enter into a committed and lifelong relationship with each other, full of love, respect, and devotion, yet remain unmarried? Do they need to be married for that?

SSM also provides for societies stability and more stable child rearing. It was part of the case. Your position also justifies sex out of wedlock.

 

[rocketclone]

It's not really as clear as you have been lead to believe, but it's silent on homosexual marriage.

I understand your feelings but it is very clear

 

[naturalmwa]

I understand your feelings but it is very clear

It's not, study the translations. The bible is very clear one shouldn't sleep with temple prostites who were often young men taking on the role of the God in question. It says nothing about sexual orientation or loving committed SSM other then to speak well of them in the case of David and Jonathan.

 

[ft254]

I thought it was very accepting...we aren't turning these people away...we just aren't going to perform their marriage ceremonies...and we aren't going to accept this behavior as being in line with church doctrine. If others don't like it let them go elsewhere. It is sin...not the only sin but sin nonetheless. Everyone sins...Christians as well. I lusted after my female server in tight jeans at Ruby Tuesday's today...

Yet another example/reason to not waste time on Sundays in a church.

 

[dandh]

I assume that was facetiousness. But I suspect Tennessee thought you were serious when he liked your comment.

Of course I was serious...you get so worked up that people might not have the correct beliefs that you often lecture people about their religion. Practice a little tolerance, it will be good for you and others.

 

[That tractor guy]

I LOVE that the same people that shit themselves repeatedly over the idea of 'religion' in government are ALL for telling churches what they can and cannot do VIA government.

It's especially funny considering the whole lie of there being any separation of Church and State in the Constitution and that the place it actually comes from is a LETTER written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the FEDERAL Gov will NEVER interfere in their religious freedoms or beliefs.

Carry on yea Titans of Tolerance that is the left.

 

[mstp1992]

I LOVE that the same people that shit themselves repeatedly over the idea of 'religion' in government are ALL for telling churches what they can and cannot do VIA government.

It's especially funny considering the whole lie of there being any separation of Church and State in the Constitution and that the place it actually comes from is a LETTER written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the FEDERAL Gov will NEVER interfere in their religious freedoms or beliefs.

Carry on yea Titans of Tolerance that is the left.

Tell me exactly who's telling CHURCHES what they can and cannot do.

 

[JWolf74]

Sorry you feel that way. It's not God's design for a marriage. Contrary to current popular opinion there is wisdom behind it. It is the foundation for successful child raising, and provides stability for society.

Any chance a gay couple could enter into a committed and lifelong relationship with each other, full of love, respect, and devotion, yet remain unmarried? Do they need to be married for that?

You realize each paragraph argues against the main point of the other, correct?