posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't think that an analogy between the Boy Scouts and LDS holds, because the Boy Scouts is not a religion.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's unlikely, Geoff. Even the opposition to the Boy Scouts rests solely on its non-religious use of public facilities.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had this in a homosexuality thread just last week. What was it called...Oh, sorry, the bigotry thread.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The First Amendment means whatever you interpert it to mean, I've ceased counted it as any sort of protection.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyhow, there is definitely a growing population of polyamorists. I know a few practitioners, even.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I wasn't aware of this.
