Presbyterians give final approval to same-sex marriage

[Deleted]

Presbyterians give final approval to same-sex marriage
9:11 p.m. EDT March 17, 2015

NEW YORK (AP) — The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has approved a new definition of marriage that includes gay marriage.

The denomination is now the largest Protestant group to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian and allow same-sex weddings churchwide.





Complete story here: WEBPAGE LINK - USA Today

[Deleted]

I almost put this in "religious discussion"... it was a close call.

I'm glad to see a major denomination accepting same-sex marriage.

[Tennesseer]

I would imagine there are some ministers of other sects that don't approve of same-sex marriage, quietly perform them off-site of church grounds.

[Opti]

I was looking to where the ELCA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,

had ended up on this question. It turns out they have left it up to the

individual ministers.

I applaud the decision but wonder how much backlash is in their denomination.

Found some on various unofficial ELCA sites like the below.

Bishop Brauer-Rieke than writes that the “Assembly of Oregon Lutherans also passed a resolution 'to stand in opposition to any and all attempts to legalize discrimination in the name of religious freedom.'" In other words, if you are a Christian business person, the ELCA synod rejects your right to refuse to participate in a gay wedding or to refuse to hire a transsexual.

Bishop Brauer-Rieke writes, “In the public realm, Christians do not pick and choose.” (read here)

Thank you, Bishop and the Oregon Synod, for letting us know that your denomination stands against and is leading the charge against the religious rights of Bible-believing Christians.

www.exposingtheelca.com/exposed-blog/category/gay%20marriage

Stuff like this tightens the link in my mind that religious freedom is really code for

being allowed to discriminate based on my religion and ignore secular laws.

[zibazinski]

Are they forcing their ministers to perform the ceremonies?

[zibazinski]

Because if they aren't or can't, it's just words to be PC.

[kittensaver]

I used to belong to the Presbyterian Church, and they have never forced any of their ministers to perform any marriages.

When I asked my minister - lo those many years ago - to marry me to my now-husband, I was told no. Because DH is a Jew.

So individual options have always been there.

I say - goooooooooo Presbyterians!

[kittensaver]

Mar 18, 2015 11:00:32 GMT -5 Opti said:

Stuff like this tightens the link in my mind that religious freedom is really code for being allowed to discriminate based on my religion and ignore secular laws.

I've actually thought this for quite a while! Not every devout person - OF COURSE - but there are DEFINITELY folks out there who are not above discriminating against and bullying others with their scriptures.

[happyhoix]

I think it's interesting that the PUSA in Alabama narrowly voted to allow their ministers to perform gay marriages - but the GOP representatives in Alabama have proposed a new bill that will allow judges and ministers to refuse to marry gay or Jewish people if it goes against their personal religious conviction.

This also allows religiously affiliated institutions to descriminate based on religion, so a Baptist hospital can refuse to let a gay spouse visit their husband or wife in their hospital.

Also judges can refuse to grant a divorce, if they don't personally believe in divorce.

www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/alabama-gop-bill-would-allow-judges-to-refuse-to-marry-gay-or-jewish-couples/

Doesn't this sound dangerously similar to Sharia law? A judge gets to decide if you are religiously qualified to get married or divorced?

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 14:17:42 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think it's interesting that the PUSA in Alabama narrowly voted to allow their ministers to perform gay marriages - but the GOP representatives in Alabama have proposed a new bill that will allow judges and ministers to refuse to marry gay or Jewish people if it goes against their personal religious conviction.

This also allows religiously affiliated institutions to descriminate based on religion, so a Baptist hospital can refuse to let a gay spouse visit their husband or wife in their hospital.

Also judges can refuse to grant a divorce, if they don't personally believe in divorce.

www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/alabama-gop-bill-would-allow-judges-to-refuse-to-marry-gay-or-jewish-couples/

Doesn't this sound dangerously similar to Sharia law? A judge gets to decide if you are religiously qualified to get married or divorced?

I think the solution to marriage and church and religious disagreements is to have legal marriage just be a contract.  Then let whatever church wants to marry a couple either do so or not.  Make that a religious ceremony and the legal marriage be a business like thing.  I think some states are doing something like that because of opposition to gay marriage.   Though that is not my thinking.  I support the right of gays to have the same marriage options as everyone else.

[Opti]

Mar 18, 2015 17:31:19 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 18, 2015 14:17:42 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think it's interesting that the PUSA in Alabama narrowly voted to allow their ministers to perform gay marriages - but the GOP representatives in Alabama have proposed a new bill that will allow judges and ministers to refuse to marry gay or Jewish people if it goes against their personal religious conviction.

This also allows religiously affiliated institutions to descriminate based on religion, so a Baptist hospital can refuse to let a gay spouse visit their husband or wife in their hospital.

Also judges can refuse to grant a divorce, if they don't personally believe in divorce.

www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/alabama-gop-bill-would-allow-judges-to-refuse-to-marry-gay-or-jewish-couples/

Doesn't this sound dangerously similar to Sharia law? A judge gets to decide if you are religiously qualified to get married or divorced?

I think the solution to marriage and church and religious disagreements is to have legal marriage just be a contract.  Then let whatever church wants to marry a couple either do so or not.  Make that a religious ceremony and the legal marriage be a business like thing.  I think some states are doing something like that because of opposition to gay marriage.   Though that is not my thinking.  I support the right of gays to have the same marriage options as everyone else.

To some extent we are already at what you are suggesting. The only legal marriage is

what is recognized by the state. However one can choose to get married with said

paperwork in a church or by a justice of the peace.

The religious disagreement is because certain religious people want their version of

marriage to be the only one sanctioned legally by the state. They don't want to be happy

with anything less at this point. They don't want people to say they are legally married if

it is a same sex couple. They want the word marriage reserved for man& woman couples only.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 17:58:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mar 18, 2015 17:31:19 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I think the solution to marriage and church and religious disagreements is to have legal marriage just be a contract.  Then let whatever church wants to marry a couple either do so or not.  Make that a religious ceremony and the legal marriage be a business like thing.  I think some states are doing something like that because of opposition to gay marriage.   Though that is not my thinking.  I support the right of gays to have the same marriage options as everyone else.

To some extent we are already at what you are suggesting. The only legal marriage is

what is recognized by the state. However one can choose to get married with said

paperwork in a church or by a justice of the peace.

The religious disagreement is because certain religious people want their version of

marriage to be the only one sanctioned legally by the state. They don't want to be happy

with anything less at this point. They don't want people to say they are legally married if

it is a same sex couple. They want the word marriage reserved for man& woman couples only.

I used to think just call it a civil union for everyone and let churches call it a marriage.  I think the problem with that is the word "marriage" has a lot of legal power now and it would confuse things to re-define the word to mean a religious union.

I work in construction and used to be I would hear a lot of gay jokes and some ugly talk.  I still hear a lot of gay jokes, but the other day when the subject of gay marriage came up somehow, everyone pretty much said "live and let live".  So things are changing.  Most people in the generation younger then you and I are fine with gay marriage.

[kittensaver]

I agree with Opti - to some extent this is already the case in America.

Another possibility is the way most European countries do it - disconnect the religious and civil arenas completely. Religious/church/temple (etc.) marriages are not recognized at all by many governments. In many European countries, if you have a religious ceremony that is only for your own personal, religious or cultural reasons and is not legally valid or binding. Persons Of The Cloth are not licensed to perform civil marriage ceremonies - only governmental officials may sign marriage licenses. That's why you see couples having a church ceremony AND a second (usually very brief) civil vow exchange at a registry office or other government facility.

For me, the problem in this country is that because religious leaders and clerics are authorized to perform marriages, *some* of them think they are entitled to dictate or control the definition of marriage for the general civil population. I think they are entirely entitled to dictate and/or control the definition of marriage for their believers (and refuse to perform said religious ceremonies if they are in conflict with their beliefs), I just don't believe they have the same right to dictate the definition of marriage to those who are not their followers/adherents, and to try and pass laws that forbid marriages that are not in keeping with their cherished beliefs - PARTICULARLY when denying marriage to persons not like them also means you are denying civil rights afforded by law. I too am glad this is rapidly changing in our country.   

[kittensaver]

Mar 18, 2015 18:04:23 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 18, 2015 17:58:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

To some extent we are already at what you are suggesting. The only legal marriage is

what is recognized by the state. However one can choose to get married with said

paperwork in a church or by a justice of the peace.

The religious disagreement is because certain religious people want their version of

marriage to be the only one sanctioned legally by the state. They don't want to be happy

with anything less at this point. They don't want people to say they are legally married if

it is a same sex couple. They want the word marriage reserved for man& woman couples only.

I used to think just call it a civil union for everyone and let churches call it a marriage.  I think the problem with that is the word "marriage" has a lot of legal power now and it would confuse things to re-define the word to mean a religious union.

I work in construction and used to be I would hear a lot of gay jokes and some ugly talk.  I still hear a lot of gay jokes, but the other day when the subject of gay marriage came up somehow, everyone pretty much said "live and let live".  So things are changing.  Most people in the generation younger then you and I are fine with gay marriage.

I agree. It's a semantics problem.

[Opti]

Mar 18, 2015 18:19:01 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I agree with Opti - to some extent this is already the case in America.

Another possibility is the way most European countries do it - disconnect the religious and civil arenas completely. Religious/church/temple (etc.) marriages are not recognized at all by many governments. In many European countries, if you have a religious ceremony that is only for your own personal, religious or cultural reasons and is not legally valid or binding. Persons Of The Cloth are not licensed to perform civil marriage ceremonies - only governmental officials may sign marriage licenses. That's why you see couples having a church ceremony AND a second (usually very brief) civil vow exchange at a registry office or other government facility.

For me, the problem in this country is that because religious leaders and clerics are authorized to perform marriages, *some* of them think they are entitled to dictate or control the definition of marriage for the general civil population. I think they are entirely entitled to dictate and/or control the definition of marriage for their believers (and refuse to perform said religious ceremonies if they are in conflict with their beliefs), I just don't believe they have the same right to dictate the definition of marriage to those who are not their followers/adherents, and to try and pass laws that forbid marriages that are not in keeping with their cherished beliefs. I too am glad this is rapidly changing in our country.   

Obviously I've been in America too long LOL. I didn't think of the solution of forcibly

decoupling weddings in churches from legal marriage paperwork.

If someone proposes a bill like that, I think we should keep a thread going to watch

all the developments.

[kittensaver]

Mar 18, 2015 18:25:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mar 18, 2015 18:19:01 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I agree with Opti - to some extent this is already the case in America.

Another possibility is the way most European countries do it - disconnect the religious and civil arenas completely. Religious/church/temple (etc.) marriages are not recognized at all by many governments. In many European countries, if you have a religious ceremony that is only for your own personal, religious or cultural reasons and is not legally valid or binding. Persons Of The Cloth are not licensed to perform civil marriage ceremonies - only governmental officials may sign marriage licenses. That's why you see couples having a church ceremony AND a second (usually very brief) civil vow exchange at a registry office or other government facility.

For me, the problem in this country is that because religious leaders and clerics are authorized to perform marriages, *some* of them think they are entitled to dictate or control the definition of marriage for the general civil population. I think they are entirely entitled to dictate and/or control the definition of marriage for their believers (and refuse to perform said religious ceremonies if they are in conflict with their beliefs), I just don't believe they have the same right to dictate the definition of marriage to those who are not their followers/adherents, and to try and pass laws that forbid marriages that are not in keeping with their cherished beliefs. I too am glad this is rapidly changing in our country.   

Obviously I've been in America too long LOL. I didn't think of the solution of forcibly

decoupling weddings in churches from legal marriage paperwork.

If someone proposes a bill like that, I think we should keep a thread going to watch

all the developments.

Personally, I don't think this will be necessary or practical. Things are changing so rapidly for the good of Marriage Equality (same-sex marriage bans being regularly struck down by the courts) that it shouldn't be needed. I predict that within the next 5-10 years, same-sex marriage will be the law in all 50 states - MUCH sooner if SCOTUS decides to weigh in (which it looks like they will).

[Deleted]

If it were a referendum vote... I'd vote for something like that!

[Tennesseer]

Mar 18, 2015 18:55:28 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Mar 18, 2015 18:25:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

Obviously I've been in America too long LOL. I didn't think of the solution of forcibly

decoupling weddings in churches from legal marriage paperwork.

If someone proposes a bill like that, I think we should keep a thread going to watch

all the developments.

Personally, I don't think this will be necessary or practical. Things are changing so rapidly for the good of Marriage Equality (same-sex marriage bans being regularly struck down by the courts) that it shouldn't be needed. I predict that within the next 5-10 years, same-sex marriage will be the law in all 50 states - MUCH sooner if SCOTUS decides to weigh in (which it looks like they will).

June of this year and it is over.

The writing has been on the wall when SCOTUS would not stop recent federal decisions overturning state same-sex marriage bans and letting the marriages begin. SCOTUS would not have allowed same-sex marriage in the most recent 19-20 states to begin if they knew they didn't have the votes to make it legal throughout the U.S.

To me, the April hearing is just a formality to finally make it legal everywhere. The 6th circuit court ruling against SSM was just what SCOTUS needed to end the debate once and for all.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 20:00:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 18, 2015 18:55:28 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Personally, I don't think this will be necessary or practical. Things are changing so rapidly for the good of Marriage Equality (same-sex marriage bans being regularly struck down by the courts) that it shouldn't be needed. I predict that within the next 5-10 years, same-sex marriage will be the law in all 50 states - MUCH sooner if SCOTUS decides to weigh in (which it looks like they will).

June of this year and it is over.

The writing has been on the wall when SCOTUS would not stop recent federal decisions overturning state same-sex marriage bans and letting the marriages begin. SCOTUS would not have allowed same-sex marriage in the most recent 19-20 states to begin if they knew they didn't have the votes to make it legal throughout the U.S.

To me, the April hearing is just a formality to finally make it legal everywhere. The 6th circuit court ruling against SSM was just what SCOTUS needed to end the debate once and for all.

I've been wondering ever since the 6th flubbed their ruling, if there wasn't some "if we rule against it, it will have to go to SCOTUS, and then it will be country wide" thinking in that ruling...

[Tennesseer]

Mar 18, 2015 21:06:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Mar 18, 2015 20:00:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

June of this year and it is over.

The writing has been on the wall when SCOTUS would not stop recent federal decisions overturning state same-sex marriage bans and letting the marriages begin. SCOTUS would not have allowed same-sex marriage in the most recent 19-20 states to begin if they knew they didn't have the votes to make it legal throughout the U.S.

To me, the April hearing is just a formality to finally make it legal everywhere. The 6th circuit court ruling against SSM was just what SCOTUS needed to end the debate once and for all.

I've been wondering ever since the 6th flubbed their ruling, if there wasn't some "if we rule against it, it will have to go to SCOTUS, and then it will be country wide" thinking in that ruling...

As I was writing the post above you quoted, I thought the exact same thing as you. I would hope that is not the case. But I did wonder for a moment or two as I wrote it.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2015 21:33:04 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 18, 2015 21:06:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I've been wondering ever since the 6th flubbed their ruling, if there wasn't some "if we rule against it, it will have to go to SCOTUS, and then it will be country wide" thinking in that ruling...

As I was writing the post above you quoted, I thought the exact same thing as you. I would hope that is not the case. But I did wonder for a moment or two as I wrote it.

LOL... I don't know if I hope it was or wasn't...

If it wasn't... then there's proof of more Justices that don't understand the concept of "Separation of Church and State"

If it was... then there are Justices that rule based on things other than the merits of the case and how the Constitution validates or invalidates the laws brought before them.

It's not really a good thought either way.