S~V~S wrote:Epignosis wrote:Frankly, I'm pissed off about how little this ruling affects me.
I had an argument with my Great Uncle (who is a VERY OLD MAN) a while back about this. He got all in my face about it, how pastors & priests would be forced to perform weddings for people against their conscience.
Um, Uncle, I said. Catholic priests have been not marrying people for YEARS because it went against their beliefs. Can't get a Catholic wedding if divorced, can't get a Catholic wedding if marrying a non-Catholic. And iirc, it is the same for Orthodox. No one tried to FORCE Father Whazzizname to do the wedding for my husband and I (he was my husbands priest) when he refused becasue I was not a Catholic. Why do people think it will be otherwise now?
So I am not getting the "it is an attack on my beliefs" argument, if religious officiants have always dictated who they would and would not marry for religious reasons. So, a gay person could not sue the Westboro Baptists for refusing to perform a Gay Wedding, because it clearly violates their doctrine. So I am not sure what Huckabee and his ilk are screaming about, acting as if Gay Marriage is a second spear stuck in Jesus' side.
I have yet to read the SCOTUS opinions and dissents on the issue but I will in due time (yeah, I'm that big of a nerd). As a social quasi-libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the way the court ruled through the lens of the 14th Amendment. What I am curious to learn is how the majority spoke to religious freedom in their decision. Pundits were pondering whether a court ruling in favor of putting same-sex marriage validity under the umbrella of the 14h Amendment would also speak to protecting the freedom of denominations to excise their religious beliefs and decline to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. If they don't extend the same level of protections as many state courts did, I can imagine a scenario where the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions (not just Christian churches mind you) are threatened over discrimination.
The crux of the argument is similar to what the Boy Scouts of America faced years ago over openly gay Scout Masters- religious institutions retain their right to preach what they want regarding homosexuality but their stance on the issue may disqualify them from tax-exempt status. As someone who belongs to a denomination that is still torn over this issue, I'd hate to see my church lose tax exempt status and likely have to shut its doors because of an issue that isn't even preached on from the pulpit. Converting a church to a taxable entity is an expensive nightmare and involves a lot of red tape, new regulations, and all sorts of headaches and pitfalls that will probably bury most small to mid-sized churches.
Golden wrote:It's hard for me to post on this subject without a giant diatribe about how ill Christianity is (certainly the part of Christianity which makes all the noise and gets all the press), so I will leave it at this...
Congratulations USA, glad you caught up.
I'm sorry you have such negative views about a faith that I myself follow. I can agree that there are plenty of people professing a faith that looks and sounds almost nothing like what I believe in. I'd love to talk to you via PM about it if you like.