Jump to content

Thank god a pastor will never be forced to marry a gay couple in Texas.


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archives/2015/06/11/governor-greg-abbott-signs-pastor-protection-act

 

From an editorial in a local paper, The Current.

 

Greg Abbott has signed a Texas law protecting pastors from being forced to marry gays. This ranks up there with banning bans on fracking.

 

 

You're hearing it more and more: The Supreme Court could overturn state same-sex marriage bans, like the one in Texas.

And Governor Greg Abbott is prepared to protect the state's pastors from performing same-sex marriages — sort of.
"Freedom of religion is the most sacred of our rights and our freedom to worship is secured by the Constitution," Abbott says in a statement. "Religious leaders in the State of Texas must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that religious freedom is beyond the reach of government or coercion by the courts."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Yes! My religion allows me to discriminate against people, and violate their civil rights! Yay freedom of religion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right to marriage is though. Marriage is not by definition a Christian or even religious ceremony. Marriage as an agreement and pledge between individuals has been around a lot longer than Christianity has. So the Christian claim of ownership of marriage and it's "sanctity" is a slimy, tenuous one at best.

 

That said I have no understanding of US law, so Christianity probably does have ownership of marriage in Texas. Which is depressing.

 

I suppose if gay couples of either gender can still marry in Texas in a secular ceremony then no harm done. If I were gay Id never want to be married by a hateful homophobic preacher-man anyway... So why bother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this has nothing to do with that, at least as Spam and the article she posted is presenting it. This has to do with the religious ceremony.

 

The only conclusion that one can reasonably accept is that participation in every religious ceremony is a civil right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I kind of misread the initial post. I didn't realise it wasn't outlawing gay marriage.. It was giving pastors the right to refuse.. My bad

 

Ordinarily I kinda enjoy taking an opportunity to get angry at Christian beliefs just on principle but in this case I kinda agree. You don't have the right to participate in any religious ceremony just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain about the president but really I feel like a lot of crap falls on Congress and the legislatures in states. They keep making these ridiculous laws. I actually know a lot of pastors that would be cool with marrying a gay couple. Pastors make money on marrying people as most charge a fee and expect to be invited to the party afterwards. So this provides cover for a select few who would probably never be asked to officiate. The biggest issue is probably finding a big Church without any bigots that would allow a big fat gay wedding to be done inside their Church if a gay couple do desired the big wedding chapel style wedding. Although getting a wedding in a Church can also be very expensive too. And a scheduling nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I didn't realize that participation in all religious ceremonies was a civil right.

It is in my religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder why people want to associate with people that shun/dislike them? I mean sure I visited Lando a lot, but... Hatred blows. Hatyellow blows too. Actually lots of stuff blows, not my wife apparently, but still. People should stop blowing. Leave cranky bastards alone and go create our brand of goodness wherever. If somewhere refuses to host, look elsewhere. McDonald's won't grill me a T-Bone, so I don't go to McDonald's demanding that someone cook my preferred meat eats. When nowhere lets you be you then let's go Mayflower. Mr. Wilson is an anchor weighing you down, let him go and set sail, God speed. Everyone is dying when they are born or everyone should live until they die. Rainbows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you went to a Catholic priest twenty years ago (and maybe now, even) and said you wanted him to marry you, he'd ask if you're Catholic. If you weren't, he'd send you on your way - and it wasn't news. If you try to go into a Mormon inner temple and you're not Mormon, you're out of luck - and it's not news. Why must this be news? I'm all for gay marriage, but it does get ridiculous, sometimes. Having the right to get married is not the right to insist on who marries you. Why in the world would anyone think it's alright to force someone to do something...in the name of equal rights?

 

Yes, if a business is open to the public, then they should be open to all of the public. However, the idea that a religious leader should be forced to go against the beliefs of his religion - presumably even in his or her place of worship - is a completely different matter. So is the notion that an independent contractor or artist (a wedding photographer, for example) should no longer be able to choose who they do business with anymore. I believe in equal rights, but what some people have started suggesting does not sound like equal rights, but rather special rights. I, as a straight man, am not guaranteed to be married by any religious leader. Nor can I dial up any random photographer or musician or lawyer or baby sitter and insist that they take my business. Respecting people's rights, liberties, and freedoms is a two way street - and the difference between "rights" and "freedoms" often seems to get lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this provides cover for a select few who would probably never be asked to officiate.

 

Not necessarily.

 

One of the recent things that's been happening is gay rights activists deliberately scoping out people who won't marry them, serve them, etc., so that they can sue them and use it as a test case to work its way up the appellate courts and thus, at best, be used for rulings to expand rights protections, or at worst, be used as material for clickbait and jezebel style articles for internet media blitz campaigns about how certain people/states/regions are homophobic, evil, should be stoned in the public square, bla bla bla, etc.

 

So, in other words, Destiny is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you went to a Catholic priest twenty years ago (and maybe now, even) and said you wanted him to marry you, he'd ask if you're Catholic. If you weren't, he'd send you on your way - and it wasn't news. If you try to go into a Mormon inner temple and you're not Mormon, you're out of luck - and it's not news. Why must this be news? I'm all for gay marriage, but it does get ridiculous, sometimes. Having the right to get married is not the right to insist on who marries you. Why in the world would anyone think it's alright to force someone to do something...in the name of equal rights?

 

Yes, if a business is open to the public, then they should be open to all of the public. However, the idea that a religious leader should be forced to go against the beliefs of his religion - presumably even in his or her place of worship - is a completely different matter. So is the notion that an independent contractor or artist (a wedding photographer, for example) should no longer be able to choose who they do business with anymore. I believe in equal rights, but what some people have started suggesting does not sound like equal rights, but rather special rights. I, as a straight man, am not guaranteed to be married by any religious leader. Nor can I dial up any random photographer or musician or lawyer or baby sitter and insist that they take my business. Respecting people's rights, liberties, and freedoms is a two way street - and the difference between "rights" and "freedoms" often seems to get lost.

 

This.

 

I was going to type up a long, ranting post, but it would basically just repeat this.

 

And yes, I am pro gay-marriage and argued pretty extensively on why DOMA was unconstitutional.

 

The matter in this thread is a different one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Lohr pretty much nailed it. One of the unfortunate consequences of progress is that it tends to fuel opportunism. Now that gay marriage is a real thing you're gonna see more people push the envelope just to get attention. Or lawsuit cash, as Carrie said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.