Where Things Get Hairy in the Gay Marriage Issue
By Four Walls
@FourWalls (62131)
United States
September 6, 2015 11:19am CST
I saw a discussion from @TiarasOceanView about an Oregon judge who is refusing to perform any marriages because his religious beliefs prohibit him from marrying gay couples.
Personally, I don't think this is an issue: unlike the attention whore...er...county clerk in Kentucky, who's not issuing licenses, period, this judge is referring the couples to other judges who have no problem performing the ceremonies.
This is where things are going to get hairy. There are, and have been for centuries, people who have refused to perform marriages on religious grounds. For instance, priests won't marry divorced people in the Catholic church. Until Vatican II priests wouldn't marry a Catholic who was marrying a non-Catholic. There's a "megachurch" in Louisville who will not marry people who (a) live together before marriage and (b) refuse to take pre-marriage classes. Some rabbis won't marry a Jew who is marrying a non-Jew, and the same is true with Muslim clerics who won't allow a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim.
The problem is there are loudmouth radicals everywhere. In England a gay couple sued the Church of England to try to force them to marry them in violation of centuries-old practices. These two men are millionaires, and they could've gone anywhere to get married: a justice of the peace (the way Elton John did), any number of gay-friendly churches or even the "gay church" itself (the Metropolitan Community Church). Instead, they tried to force a church to change its beliefs. That is wrong. "Live and let live" works on both sides of the argument: don't try to force people to believe homosexuality is the only sin in the Bible; and, likewise, don't try to force a church to violate their beliefs.
We'd never allow someone to walk into a synagogue and force an Orthodox Jew to eat a ham sandwich. By the same token, whether you personally agree with the belief or not, it MUST be respected. Remember, until about 45 years ago the U.S. agreed with the churches...not that homosexuality was a "sin," but that it was a crime.
That will not be thrown in jail For defying the law, unlike the clerk in...
4 people like this
3 responses
@lecanis (16647)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
7 Sep 15
My question with these kinds of stories is always: who would even want someone who believes their love is a sin involved in their marriage ceremony? I certainly wouldn't want to be married by someone who felt that way, and I don't really understand anyone wanting their marriage started off on that note.
I do think that a judge is performing a marriage in the name of the state, not their personal religion, so it is a little different from a priest doing so. But trying to force clergy into performing ceremonies is just silly - and somewhat petty - and doesn't really help anyone's cause. Are some people frustrated because they can't get married within their own church? Sure, I can understand that. But I think in that case it's a matter of accepting that being a member of a religious group with those kinds of beliefs is going to be self-limiting, and being realistic about that.
2 people like this
@FourWalls (62131)
• United States
7 Sep 15
There's an old, old Jewish idiom that goes, "Two Jews, three opinions." 
That pretty much carries over to any religion. The case of the British couple who sued the Church of England is a good example: over here, we call them "Anglicans" or "Episcopalians." There are very strict, conservative churches, and there are very liberal churches within the Anglican or Episcopalian movement. Instead of finding a lawyer they should've found one of those ministers who would gladly have married them. There are priests in the Catholic church who think there should be women priests, married priests, and birth control is okay -- despite the "official church doctrine" that says otherwise.
The judge simply deferred the people who wanted to be married to another judge. That's like him recusing himself from a case due to "conflict of interest." No biggie. The people GOT MARRIED, they weren't denied anything, so this instance is the proverbial "making a mountain out of a mole hill."
I completely agree with you about the idiocy of trying to force someone who doesn't want to be at your wedding to officiate at it. The minister or judge would probably preach instead of officiate, and what should be a happy occasion would turn into a disaster. No, there are far too many options for someone to use their marriage as a federal case.
Thanks for your great reply!
That pretty much carries over to any religion. The case of the British couple who sued the Church of England is a good example: over here, we call them "Anglicans" or "Episcopalians." There are very strict, conservative churches, and there are very liberal churches within the Anglican or Episcopalian movement. Instead of finding a lawyer they should've found one of those ministers who would gladly have married them. There are priests in the Catholic church who think there should be women priests, married priests, and birth control is okay -- despite the "official church doctrine" that says otherwise.
The judge simply deferred the people who wanted to be married to another judge. That's like him recusing himself from a case due to "conflict of interest." No biggie. The people GOT MARRIED, they weren't denied anything, so this instance is the proverbial "making a mountain out of a mole hill."
I completely agree with you about the idiocy of trying to force someone who doesn't want to be at your wedding to officiate at it. The minister or judge would probably preach instead of officiate, and what should be a happy occasion would turn into a disaster. No, there are far too many options for someone to use their marriage as a federal case.
Thanks for your great reply!@lecanis (16647)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
7 Sep 15
@FourWalls It's true that individual clergy often have very different ideas from official church doctrine, I've definitely seen that. It makes a lot of sense when people are constantly having to weigh life experience, new scientific evidence, and the myriad different translations and interpretations of Scriptures to form opinions on things.
What frustrates me on these issues is that pressing the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage is a huge part of how the political climate (in the United States at least) evolved to a point to make the gay marriage ruling possible at all. There's already enough backlash politically against the ruling, so trying to push that boundary isn't helping.
It also gives people who are complaining that the very existence of gay marriage in some way harms them (which is a lot of people who AREN'T in positions to be affected) more ground to stand on, which I really don't want to see.
@TiarasOceanView (70035)
• United States
6 Sep 15
Yes agreed Four Walls, there are loud mouths everywhere. And those who will cause problems no matter what. Some people are never satisfied.
1 person likes this
@GreatMartin (23677)
• Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
8 Sep 15
There is a difference between a priest a rabbi and a judge--the latter is a political position--he has a duty to all whereas the two former have a duty only to his congregation.
