Hey, I just had a quick question that I wanted to toss out, to see what people think.
If the legalization of gay marriage becomes universal throughout the country at some point in the future, do you think that there might be a subsequent push to make the denial of gay marriages by religious organizations ILLegal, on the grounds of civil rights, much the way the Boy Scouts has faced harsh consequences for refusing to admit gay scoutmasters?
In other words, might my own (LDS) church be fined or denied its special status if it does not solemnize gay marriages in the temple?
And those of you who feel passionately that gay marriage should be legal and standard throughout the country — do you think that it would be right to attempt to force a church's hand this way?
[ February 18, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Can't religions keep anyone out if they want to? I don't think the government has the right to force a church to allow someone to participate in rituals or ceremonies, and I don't foresee the government assuming that right anytime soon.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
No.
I don't think that an analogy between the Boy Scouts and LDS holds, because the Boy Scouts is not a religion.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I kind of doubt it. Now, I haven't done any research, and I'm answering this off the top of my head. However, it seems like that would be a huge violation of the First Amendment, both free exercise and establishment clauses. For example, I don't think there was ever a move to deny status as a religious organization during the time African-American men could not hold the priesthood in the Mormon church and there isn't now, regarding their withholding the priesthood from women. Same thing with the Catholic Church -I've never heard of any kind of effort to withhold recognition as a religious organization because only men may become priests.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Those are very good points, lma. Consider my idle worries much assuaged Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
I wouldn't think so. Religions can decide to marry whomever they like. For example, my place of worship would never marry me to a person outside my people and faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's unlikely, Geoff. Even the opposition to the Boy Scouts rests solely on its non-religious use of public facilities.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, I think the ACTION against the Boy Scouts is based on the legality of letting a restrictive organization use publicly supported lands-- but the OBJECTION to the Boy Scouts is most definitely ethical in nature.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
As long as your church doesn't take state funds, I see no reason why any action taken against it would last more then five minutes in court, on such a case.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually, the BoyScouts are claiming to be a religious organization, though a somewhat ecumenical one. Not that it matters. The USSupremeCourt has maintained that private organizations -- ie organizations which do not use public funds or engage in business with the public -- have the right to select whatever membership criteria they want. So the BoyScouts (under a rather 'blind-to-facts' Court ruling) have the right to discriminate against gays and people who won't swear an oath to a HigherPower.
USSenator StromThurmond owned a whites' only restaurant by designating it a members only club until at least his second-to-last term, possibly until the day he died.
The Augusta country club which hosts the MastersTournament had no AfricanAmerican members until TigerWoods' win embarrassed them into broadening admissions. Probably take a win by MichelleWie to get the country club to admit women.
Etc... So there is no chance whatsoever of our government forcing any church to marry anyone.
[ September 24, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
But given the past history of the U.S. governments "intervention" into LDS beliefs surrounding marriage partners and the numbers permitted thereof, your anxieties are certainly understandable.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We had this in a homosexuality thread just last week. What was it called...Oh, sorry, the bigotry thread.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Shan, I haven't done much research into the LDS history of polygamy and the govt. Is it legal to have multiple women living in your house with their children? Did it come down to money/taxes?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
From what I understand, Utah wasn't a part of the Union at that point, and this was one of the points that kept the U.S. from accepting them into it, correct?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As much as I am in favor of SOME churches losing their tax exemptions, it would not be for anything like this. Rather, it would be for engaging in political campaigning. Why? Because I don't feel that any tax-exempt organization should be allowed to campaign on the public nickle, so to speak.
I think the government has reaffirmed repeatedly that churches are autonomous. I think they went too far in this direction by allowing discriminatory hiring practices in programs that receive federal funds -- some of the faith-based initiatives. But I can see the point -- you can't force Lutherans to hire Satanists just because they get some federal assistance to deliver charity cheaper than the US government could.
It's sort of a sticky issue. It's one of the reasons I don't like school vouchers and the president's faith-based initiative. It means that public money is going to religious institutions without the usual rules applying. It sets up a double standard.
I look for the next administration to stop the silly voucher programs altogether and to have a different method of interfacing with church-based charities.
As for the Boy Scouts, much of that pressure came from average citizens, not the government. You can't control or predict what people are going to get all het up about. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Americans deciding that some religions are woefully behind the times on issues like homosexuality, female ministers, and the like. What they'll do about? Usually, they'll just stay away from those churches. On the other hand, with just the right spin at just the right moment, it wouldn't surprise me to see protesters in front of some religious establishments, especially if those are getting government funding and are discriminatory in their hiring practices.
Not for gay marriage though. There'd be very little point to such a protest, IMHO.
But hey, people used to picket the Catholic Church all the time. Attendance was up as a result...until the scandals with pedophilia.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The First Amendment means whatever you interpert it to mean, I've ceased counted it as any sort of protection.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
If it was a question of acceptance into the Union, then it's not a modern question, right? If the LDS wanted to re-recognize polygamy (polygyny?) then the government wouldn't have a legal problem with it, I would think. As long as they're not trying to legally marry each wife with monetary benefits (re: polygamy and legal problems), it's a question of "morality" like cohabitation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Suneun, what about bigamy laws?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bigamy was on the list of stuff that the recent SC decisions invalidated laws against.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In the LDS scriptures it says that polygamy is sometimes instituted by the prophet, not by the government. So LDS living in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to take four wives, even though it is legal there. Though I haven't heard whether a polygamous Saudi, joining the LDS church, has to renounce his other wives. Typically he would have to go into hiding anyway. We are told they are in danger of being killed if we proselytize them. Or maybe it's just a convincing way to keep us from knocking on their doors.
Hey, we always get shredded for drawing commonalities between polygamy and gay marriage in the other gay threads. What gives?
[ February 18, 2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually, BobScopatz, there are no federal checks&balances on how "faith-based initiative" money is used by religious organizations. Only secular charitable organizations have to keep track of and explain what taxpayer money has been spent on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I reasonably sure that at least half the people I know who support gay marriage would fight against anything like what you're suggesting Geoff. I know I would.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Federal monies pass through (typically) state agencies that are required to follow best practice guidelines in contracting with private organizations to provide the services. Many checks and balances are included in this process.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Rivka: don't bigamy laws concern trying to get a second marriage licence?
Pooka: I certainly have no moral problems with polygamy (though I would have problems with only allowing polygyny and not polyandry or vice versa). Come up with a suitable monetary system for a "legal union" of more than two people, and I'll vote for it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Suneun, I don't think so. Aren't people prosecuted under bigamy laws (occasionally)? And jailed?
Can't find any good links -- the issue seems to be both highly politicized and murky. Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Rivka: well if they are persecuted for simply living together, that's just wrong.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Anyhow, there is definitely a growing population of polyamorists. I know a few practitioners, even.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Given part of the rationale for supporting gay marriage (strengthening marriage as an institution), one would think that more people would support polygamy.
After all, there are a lot of illegitimate kids out there, fathered by men who are de facto polygamists. Actual polygamists at least marry (with whatever kind of ceremony) their childrens' mothers and proceed to raise and feed those kids.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just want to point out that if the question is, as Geoff asserted in another thread, whether or not Gay Marriage is good for society; and it is given that society has the right to enforce/restrict behavior for the common good, then it would be entirely consistent with this belief for society to force the Mormon church to change if at some point it felt that gay marriage was a 'good'.
Edit: Just wanted to add that I recognize that I believe he also said that marriage should not be a function of the state. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, Geoff.
[ February 19, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That supposes that the "good" from enforcing the performance of gay marriage or, more importantly, the "bad" from not doing so would outweigh having a society where rights like those of religions were not respected. I don't think that anyone could ever make that case convincingly.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I agree. I think that's when the Rechabite Principle kicks in.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A special exemption protecting religious organizations receiving federal funds from auditing was added by the House to the 'faith-based initiative' enabling legislation, then jammed through the House-Senate Leadership Conference.
Same kinda doubledealing included in the Medicare "drug bill" to prevent government using its purchasing power to bargain with drug manufacturers to obtain lower prices.
[ February 19, 2004, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
We all agree that religious bigotry is wrong. You can't be fired because of your religous beliefs. However, that doesn't mean your Mormon Church must hire the most qualified applicant, even if she's a 200 year old undead voodoo priestess (Can't beat tenure like that).
Nor has the government forced any church to accept women in equal rolls as men, despite strong laws on equal employment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Will churches be able to use publicly funded buildings like schools?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It would seem wiser to provide one's own buildings, if one did not wish to be under the close purview of the state.
Sort of the obverse of "Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's:"
Don't borrow from Caesar those things which are not yours. (?)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Will churches be able to use publicly funded buildings like schools?
For?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The government has never told religious institutions that they must perform a religious ceremony. Currently churches (synagogues/mosques/etc) have complete discretion over whether or not to perform a wedding. I don’t see any reason why that would change.
Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who's divorced. I could decide tomorrow that I will only officiate at a wedding if the bride is at least five years older than the groom and the government couldn’t stop me. (My denomination, on the other hand, would stomp me.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Public building supported by taxes = mine
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry. Stuff supported by taxes = 'ours', which means LCD stuff.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ahhh. But then Church becomes institution supported by building supported by public money, thus = yours + mine. Do you really want me to control a piece of your Church?
(I mean, I'm nice and all, but ... )
Better to have public monies fund those things which benefit all of the public, and keep private those things one wishes to keep private, no?
I mean, I'd have no serious objection to the public funding religion, so long as the public then gets a say in the tenets of the religion. (Which is sort of how it works for you and the public buildings: i.e., you get a say, but you don't trump, right?)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Or, what Stormie said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
All right-- then why do we allow political functions at school?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Such as Democratic or Republican party fundraisers? I wasn't aware of this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Accepting money = accepting conditions.
Which is why the plan to live off your rich father means you never become self-actualized.
On the other hand, I want it to work both ways. If the schools are closed to churches because people object, they should be closed to clubs I object to.
----
Dang it, I should have known that's where Scott was headed.
[ February 19, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I may be wrong, but I believe that candidates have stumped at public schools. . . I don't know if fund raising is allowed (I don't mind it, as long as everyone gets a fair shake).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:On the other hand, I want it to work both ways. If the schools are closed to churches because people object, they should be closed to clubs I object to.
Hmmm.
Would you call for a complete consensus of everyone regarding what is permissible, or would majority opinion hold sway, or would "reasonable objections" (whatever that means) be taken into account? Interesting.
Or would it be space open to all clubs which permit oversight or conditions to be held?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This is why the state shouldn't run schools. edit: That is, no one can agree on what is 'best' and everyone ends up disliking the end result.
It's why the state should give parents money to run and open schools. If you want to make your school open, make it open. If you want to make it 'closed', make it closed. Simple and no one but you and other like minded parents have a say in what happens at your school.
[ February 19, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I may be wrong, but I believe that candidates have stumped at public schools. . . I don't know if fund raising is allowed (I don't mind it, as long as everyone gets a fair shake).
I'm not too comfortable with the idea of stumping at public schools, no matter who does it. But my feelings are different about sponsoring public debate, be it for political or religious or philosophical debate. I'm not sure if that feeling is justified or grounded in reason, though. I'd have to think about it.
Voting for elected offices is a public event answerable to public oversight, so I don't have a problem with public schools being used as polling places.
You know, this gets even more complicated at the public university setting, at least as things currently run.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Schools whose policies allow community groups/clubs to use their facilities also allow churches to use their facilities, on the same basis and under the same rules. Schools that don’t allow outside groups to use their facilities don’t.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:This is why the state shouldn't run schools. edit: That is, no one can agree on what is 'best' and everyone ends up disliking the end result.
It's why the state should give parents money to run and open schools. If you want to make your school open, make it open. If you want to make it 'closed', make it closed. Simple and no one but you and other like minded parents have a say in what happens at your school.
Should there still be mandatory minimum standards for schools? If yes, who should oversee them? If no, then I suppose there would be no mandatory minimum of education, correct? Not even the learning of language?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Correct.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Schools whose policies allow community groups/clubs to use their facilities also allow churches to use their facilities, on the same basis and under the same rules. Schools that don?t allow outside groups to use their facilities don?t.
Consistency is generally a useful approach. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Will churches be able to use publicly funded buildings like schools?
I for awhile attended a church which met in a school building (church building not built yet). We PAID for facility -- regular lease like any other non-profit organization would wanting to use school facilities.
Schools often lease to churches on weekends -- they have gyms and all that -- it helps the funding of the local district AND helps the church provide things they might otherwise not be able to.
Farmgirl
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's the question of whether schools - state-owned and operated institutions - should be part of the communities larger or life or if it should stick to simply teaching.
If it is to be a part of a community's larger life, that includes things like churches and also whatever clubs kids find in themselves a need to belong to. If it means that it accomodates only the elements of a community's larger life that other elements don't object to supporting, that would severely restrict the list. Part of the point of clubs and things for teenagers is to find people who share their experiences so they don't feel so alone. If the answer is to find that shared experience all you want, but not on my dime, then that has to work for all the groups - not selecting out the religious ones to object to.
What would I say? Everything non-academic related is not supported on school property.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Wow, Stormie. That's big.
I mean, that's really big. Big as in no even pretense of a "level playing field" big, and no pretense of "land of opportunity" big.
Wow.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I vill oversee ze chilldrenz.
Zey vill obey ME!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: If the answer is to find that shared experience all you want, but not on my dime, then that has to work for all the groups - not selecting out the religious ones to object to.
What would I say? Everything non-academic related is not supported on school property.
What about "not on my dime" meaning (as Farmgirl alludes) "not unless you are either academic-related or are paying to rent the space?" Is that amenable, or is it outrageous, or somewhere in between?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: the same basis and under the same rules
The problem is that I am willing to bet that the 'basis' and the 'rules' that schools normally used are really not open to any group that wants to stop by the school. In liberal districts, I bet 'liberal' causes are given preference, and vice versa in conservative ones.
For instance, one of the high schools I went to in BFE, GA. had a couple preachers come in to talk about abstinence and the like, but no visits from the WWF. Perhaps this is just a result of the community I was in, but that raises another question.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*obeys Scott
(but out of fear, not love, so if you leave your cookies unguarded, they might just be gone )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
WWF = World Wildlife Fund? Worldwide Wrestling Federation?
I wonder, did the other people ever seek to use the space, or was it self-segregation? Odd.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Wow, Stormie. That's big.
I mean, that's really big. Big as in no even pretense of a "level playing field" big, and no pretense of "land of opportunity" big.
Wow.
I'm sorry, I think I didn't communicate very well. Parents will be given money to hire teachers and to send their children to school. If they want to home school, they home school. Want to send your kids to the Sudbury school, go for it. Want to send your kids to a Christian academy, go for it. It's the best solution I have been able to think of to allow parents opportunity for their children, while at the same time avoiding the trap of the state overseeing the education.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fear. . . love. . .
It iz all ze same, mein grubherr rekdischlott.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And having asked a suitable number of open-ended questions, I now bid you adieu.
It's part of the mysique thing I have going. That, and the going-back-to-work thing. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Scott: Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What about "not on my dime" meaning (as Farmgirl alludes) "not unless you are either academic-related or are paying to rent the space?" Is that amenable, or is it outrageous, or somewhere in between?
That would work. So, what's the definition of academic?
For example...Drugs Used Through the Ages? Generic Bible study? Sappho and Her Daughters?
Would those be academic?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:aspectre said: A special exemption protecting religious organizations receiving federal funds from auditing was added by the House to the 'faith-based initiative' enabling legislation, then jammed through the House-Senate Leadership Conference.
Can you provide a link on this?
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Yeah, I know, kat, especially at the university level, where topics just get more and more complicated. Egads.
*suddenly glad it isn't my job to decide
More conversation later, okay? I have to primp just enough that I don't frighten the children. )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, definitely. I'm glad you're feeling better. Later. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
>_<
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stormy, what do you think about academic classes at public universities that do not fit with traditional definitions?
See: Berkeley undergrad catalog.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Not sure what you're asking. I think people should be educated in whatever direction they want to be educated. Am I coming across as being a proponent for or against traditional education?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
WARNING: This thread is about to be returned to its original topic.
I agree with those who say they are opposed to the government forcing religions to perform a particular ceremony. However, if recent history has anything to do with it, my opinion doesn't count. The only ones that do count are those of a few former lawyers who wear black robes. This is the real issue at hand.
Mr. Squicky said:
quote: I reasonably sure that at least half the people I know who support gay marriage would fight against anything like what you're suggesting Geoff. I know I would.
The problem is that the black-robe-wearers don't care whether Mr. Squicky, and half of those like him, support government interfering with religion or not. It's becoming increasingly clear that under our current system, individual opinions don't count.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
How is your post more on topic than the direction the thread went?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Thats a good question. I suppose it seems more germaine to the topic to me because Geoff's question directly addresses whether or not there is a possibility of the government denying tax-exempt status (and other benefits) to religious organizations that refuse to ordain gay marriages. My opinion is that there definitely IS such a possibility under our current system, and my post related that position.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
MY posts vere more on ze topik.
I vill oversee zese judgez. Zey vill obey ME!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Brian, can you cite one instance where a religious body was ordered by the courts to perform a religious ceremony?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I could decide tomorrow that I will only officiate at a wedding if the bride is at least five years older than the groom and the government couldn’t stop me.
So, are we talking mental age or physical?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
No, and I doubt that there is such an instance, nor will there be in the next several years. My point is that the possibility does exist. The legal system today allows for great power to be given to unelected judges, who, by virtue of being appointed for life, have no accountability for their actions. My fear is that if the system continues unchecked, the balance of power will tip more and more towards the judiciary. Geoff's post talked about what may happen at "some point in the future." So that is what I've addressed.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Interesting argument Brian.
It just doesn't add up.
The Supreme Court cannot make law, it can only rule on the constitutionality of the law that exists.
It cannot enforce its rullings. Only members of the executive branch can do that.
It cannot decide what laws to rule on, just what arguments it won't rule on.
The Terms "In God We Trust" on our money may cross the line between Church and State, yet nobody has taken this argument to the Supreme Court, so they have not ruled on it.
There is no constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to rule on your religion.
So basically, you are worried over something that is very unlikely to ever occur.
On the other hand, any changes that I've ever heard suggested to be made to the Supreme Court are much more likely to hurt us all.
Having them elected opens them up to the same political intrigues and games that our Senators and Presidents must endure. Changing them with each new administration makes them totally ineffective in supporting the rights of the minority.
Right now we have Republicans in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. If the Judicial was all elected, what would stop a bill illegalizing Democrats from getting passed and upheld?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I wasn't aware of this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)