same sex Marriage question

[jtw4796]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?

The Supreme court does not make laws, they interpret them and no federal law has been enacted to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore they cannot make something legal that doesn't exist.

If the Justices truly believe in the Constitution then they would let the States make the decision about marriage themselves. It is not a federal issue.

 

[martybegan]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

They probably will be sued by someone, and they will be up to the mercies of whatever the viewpoints of the judges they get when sued.

This is a battle between the 1st amendment's protection of religous freedom, free speech and freedom of association vs. anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Oldguy]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?

The Supreme court does not make laws, they interpret them and no federal law has been enacted to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore they cannot make something legal that doesn't exist.

If the Justices truly believe in the Constitution then they would let the States make the decision about marriage themselves. It is not a federal issue.

The Supreme Court certainly can make it legal in every state if they rule upon the right to get married or rule on it as a privacy issue, as they did with Roe v. Wade. And, given the cases before them now, they have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

 

[Oldguy]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

I suppose they could be sued, but I doubt the suit would be very successful for the simple reason that marriage is a legal contract and a legal ceremony which does not require the involvement of a preacher. If a pastor refused to conduct a same sex marriage, he would probably be within his 1st Amendment rights because the couple would have the option of going to a Justice of the Peace.

If a couple demanded a church marriage, which is only a ceremony with no legally binding effect without a state issued marriage license, they'd run head on against the 1st Amendment.

Never forget that in the debate over same sex marriage, we're talking about two separate and very distinct marriage ceremonies. One is religious and non-binding without the involvement of the state, and the other is a state, or secular, marriage which is contractual in nature.

It helps to never confuse the two.....but, most people do.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?

The Supreme court does not make laws, they interpret them and no federal law has been enacted to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore they cannot make something legal that doesn't exist.

If the Justices truly believe in the Constitution then they would let the States make the decision about marriage themselves. It is not a federal issue.

The Supreme Court certainly can make it legal in every state if they rule upon the right to get married or rule on it as a privacy issue, as they did with Roe v. Wade. And, given the cases before them now, they have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

Keep believing that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

No government can force a clergy person to marry anyone, per the 1st Amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

 

[jtw4796]

Thanks for your insight. I have been told My feelings are close to some other countries on this matter.
I believe there should be 2 different ceremonies. The Civil one and the religious one. The civil one, performed by a magistrate, would be the only one the government would recognize and be open to all. The religious one would be left up to the churches to decide who they will marry with no government interference and would not be recognized so a couple married by a preacher would also have to be married by a magistrate to be recognized by the government. This would also solve my fears of Conservative pastors being sued.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Did the Roe v. Wade decision settle the issue of abortion?

Do you think the Justices want to do that again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think the analogy is correct, but I understand Katz's point.

 

[LittleNipper]

http://www.ha-fs.org/

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did the Roe v. Wade decision settle the issue of abortion?

Do you think the Justices want to do that again?

The two cases before the court are Prop 8 (targeted removal of a right once exercised by the people) and DOMA Section 3 (federal discrimination on recognition of lawfully entered into Civil Marriages).


The SCOTUS isn't going to use either of these two cases to overturn State discrimination against same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws. From California first overturning anti-miscegenation laws (around 1947) until the Loving decision, it was 20-years and many states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws so that there were only (IIRC) 15-18 remaining. With only 10 states currently recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage (9 can enter into, 1 recognizes it form others), it will be a few years yet before the SCOTUS will be willing to intrude nationally.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

 

[WorldWatcher]

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

That's right, they are sued under state law. The loophole is removing your business from Public Accommodation. That is what is happening, slowly right now, but inexorably. I was sued under Public Accommodation laws and won, because it was never proved that my services were offered to the public. The photographer in my art group likewise removed his business from Public Accommodation. My mechanic removed his business from Public Accommodation long ago. He has chosen his customers on a case by case basis for 15 years.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

That's right, they are sued under state law. The loophole is removing your business from Public Accommodation. That is what is happening, slowly right now, but inexorably. I was sued under Public Accommodation laws and won, because it was never proved that my services were offered to the public. The photographer in my art group likewise removed his business from Public Accommodation. My mechanic removed his business from Public Accommodation long ago. He has chosen his customers on a case by case basis for 15 years.

The photographer case from New Mexico, advertised they they performed services for weddings and other special events.

The florists case from Washington, she advertised they she performed services for weddings and other special events.

The "baker" case (if I'm remembering it correctly) was actually a cupcake maker the advertised they provided catering services.



I'm not saying I agree with the law, just saying that Public Accommodation laws exists and that putting a sign up will not insulate you from following the law.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

I agree at the federal level such laws, unless they apply to interstate commerce are unconsitutional. Thier consitutional value per state relies on the state constituions.

I would not rescind them entirely. Places such as supermarkets, hotels and other crucial forms of commerce should have to follow anti-discrimination laws. Other things like chocolate stores, hairdressers and specialty clothing stores? Not so much.