Once my church marries me, my legal status automatically changes.

I know this post is late to the thread, but let me put a little clarification out there.

There are actually two marriages; we hold them within a single ceremony, as an act of legal convenience.

Sacramental Marriage is the chuches part – different denominations use different forms, but the same basic construct;
1. They testify, in some way, that the couple is deserving of the right to be married.
2. They ask for affirmation from the couple that they desire to be married, and are committed to it.
3. They bless the marriage

After that, the officiant says something like “by the power vested in me, by [the state of...] and pronounces them married. This is the acknowledgement of the Legal Marriage.

The vesting of that power does not have to be in the Priest, in some states; any compentent person can apply for that power for the limited circumstance of one ceremony.

So, a church can solemnize a marriage, without the state granting the marriage legal status; or, a legal marriage can be performed without a religous component.

Separate, but often combined.

Loxodonta is, if anything, understating the problem in academia. The new left crowd began making serious headway in the mid 1960s, and while many of these people were legitimate scholars, there were a strong component that were ideologues who viewed truth not as an empirical matter, but as whatever was politically advantageous. The politics of the left really started taking over in the mid to late 1970s.

Orson Buggeigh on May 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Yes. You are right. When I think about it, there was a very noticeable presence among the faculty and staff back in the 60′s. Perhaps it’s my nature, limited experience, or I was just lucky, but I don’t recall it becoming dangerous for conservatives until after Reagan, and every year since it’s gotten worse.

I think your own words spoke why…..”You’re clearly an activist.

I think you’re looking at someone else’s post.

Here’s what I posted:

1) Crimes against gays should be punished appropriately with existing laws (I’m not a big fan of thought hate crime legislation)

2) It is obvious that there is a very vocal and active segment of gay activists that will not rest unless and until it is a crime for religions to preach that homosexual activity is a sin. For these activists, it’s not so much about their rights as it is about attacking the church (and the synagogue and the mosque)

3) There are crimes that go the other “way” – The Wichita Massacre

Religious_Zealot on May 22, 2009 at 10:12 AM

And try as I might, there is no “You’re clearly an activist” in there.

In fact, that particular quote can’t be found on this entire thread.

Thus my confusion on how you got “you’re an activist” out of my post.

That is essentially my perspective and I acknowledge your observations about government overreach. I’d hope, and also bet, that the courts will defend the first amendment against gay efforts to create speech codes or for religious organizations to perform weddings.

dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM

It seems to me that restraining the leftward movement of the Supreme Court should be one area where social cons and libertarians can find common ground. As an evangelical I can tell you that contrary to media driven mythology, most evangelicals are not on a crusade to force their beliefs down everyone’s throats. Our position on social issues is defensive rather than offensive. No, we don’t approve of gay marriage and that won’t change given that we follow the moral teachings of the Bible. But we could probably live with gay marriage if we knew our religious freedoms would be protected. I have no confidence of that in this current political climate.

I’m confused on how you got that out of my statement.

I think your own words spoke why…..”You’re clearly an activist.

I think, personally, insisting that churches marry is obviously a trespassing of religion/state rights.

You want to marry?

Find a gay-friendly minister.

End of story. The state has NO right to impose beliefs on religions.

That’s constitutional.

Goodness, I’m anything but a gay activist. That’ll make my young liberal son chuckle. He thinks I’ve gone to the dark side. :)

AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I’m confused on how you got that out of my statement.

Unless, of course, you are stating that you believe it should be illegal for churches to teach that homosexuality is a sin.

The UN currently says that it is unlawful for anyone in the universe to not ACCEPT and APPRECIATE every culture and that it is unlawful for any religion to DISCRIMINATE between people for any reason if doing so would prevent their “civil rights”. If the legal status of marriage between anybody who wants that status is defined as a civil right, then according to the UN – which is the legal standard for folks such as Ginsburg – any religion which discriminates to refuse that “right” would be illegal.

That’s the direction we’re heading, in all practical terms.

If they don’t get it, are they really liberals? Wouldn’t appear so. When people like Michael Kinsley get on and start going on and on about what liberalism is, do they realize that the modern American liberal doesn’t even value such things?

yes, the Bill of Rights protects individuals against oppression by the government
When’s the last time you’ve heard a modern American liberal actually invoke the Bill of Rights except maybe in the context of saying it needs to be rewritten?

Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM

SPOT ON comments. Recently, on his radio program, Mark Levin made similar comments. American Liberals aren’t adhering to the true essense of Liberalism.

An empathetic court might recognize that such behavior on the part of a religious group is hate speech and does not fall under the protection of free exercise. Remember, courts change. And the direction is almost always leftward.

frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM

We’ll see. I’m opposed to empathy.

Any responsible justice is going to have to consider precedent. The justice will have recognize that state laws limiting free speech are subject to very strict scrutiny, meaning that banning demonstrations to reduce violence toward a group doesn’t work, unless those demonstrations themselves immediately cause the violence.

Does that mean Obama will appoint a reasonable justice? I don’t know. Maybe he’ll find someone more empathetic than legally sound–and that would be terrible. The senate hearings will be interesting.

I think what you’re doing is trying to make a libertarian argument for SSM in a very non-liberterian society. I respect your argument but I also recognize the realities of the type of system we live in.

frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM

That is essentially my perspective and I acknowledge your observations about government overreach. I’d hope, and also bet, that the courts will defend the first amendment against gay efforts to create speech codes or for religious organizations to perform weddings.

There is a case before SCOTUS now involving the New Haven firefighters and racial hiring. The expectation is that SCOTUS is getting set to roll back racial hiring preferences in government jobs. The expectation of this is based on Roberts seeking a color-blind approach. I hope Roberts prevails and gets government’s thumb off the scales.

If a religious group wants to have a gathering with signs telling gays to repent or face an eternity in hell the court will recognize that they have even more Constitutional protection since both free speech and free exercise are involved.

dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

An empathetic court might recognize that such behavior on the part of a religious group is hate speech and does not fall under the protection of free exercise. Remember, courts change. And the direction is almost always leftward.

Presumably the photographer could already be sued if he failed to shoot a gay “commitment” ceremony.

Gays should get the same legal rights as other couples and the photographer should be able to turn down their business.

dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM

You’re right, they could already be sued and I believe there have been such actual cases. My point again is that lawsuits such as this will increase exponentially once gay marriage becomes law. Once hardline SSM supporters have won the trophy of the term “marriage”, what will be the next step? Do you think that will be the end of it? No way. The next step will be to exinguish every form of opposition from polite society, just as has happened with race.

I think what you’re doing is trying to make a libertarian argument for SSM in a very non-liberterian society. I respect your argument but I also recognize the realities of the type of system we live in.

And that is why conservatives like me are so against gay marriage. I’m not trying to deny any one else their rights..I’m trying to protect my own. If we lived in a pure libertarian society I would be far less concerned about SSM. But we don’t. We live under the creeping power of a big and powerful federal government. Once gay marriage becomes law of the land, the left will be emboldened to persecute anyone who does not tow the liberal line on gay issues.

frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM

I’m opposed to much of the anti-discrimination law. However, gays are already a protected class in many states so businesses can’t discriminate regardless of whether gays are married or not. Presumably the photographer could already be sued if he failed to shoot a gay “commitment” ceremony.

Gays should get the same legal rights as other couples and the photographer should be able to turn down their business.

yubley on May 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Way to go out on a limb there!

And the gay marriage folks are making sure that the Constitution we supposedly have actually encodes state control of which religious speech is permitted and which is “discriminatory”.

justincase on May 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The Supreme Court forced Skokie to let the Nazis march, despite appeals to the courts from Jews who considered the swastika hate speech–and it is pretty hateful.

If a religious group wants to have a gathering with signs telling gays to repent or face an eternity in hell the court will recognize that they have even more Constitutional protection since both free speech and free exercise are involved.

I think they should be able to turn down any business that comes their way, but when legislative bodies make laws that say otherwise the Constitution is less protective of their rights than of religious institutions.

dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM

And that is why conservatives like me are so against gay marriage. I’m not trying to deny any one else their rights..I’m trying to protect my own. If we lived in a pure libertarian society I would be far less concerned about SSM. But we don’t. We live under the creeping power of a big and powerful federal government. Once gay marriage becomes law of the land, the left will be emboldened to persecute anyone who does not tow the liberal line on gay issues.

So, a very matronly woman I know left her marriage of 20 years and hooked with one of the most masculine, stereotypical dykes I’ve ever met in real life. Right out of TV, practically.

3 years later, the dyke decided she wished to go one step further and go through the process of becoming a man, physically.

My friend was then back where she started, with a man.

:)

Life is stranger than fiction, eh?

2) It is obvious that there is a very vocal and active segment of gay activists that will not rest unless and until it is a crime for religions to preach that homosexual activity is a sin. For these activists, it’s not so much about their rights as it is about attacking the church (and the synagogue and the mosque)

Goodness, I’m anything but a gay activist. That’ll make my young liberal son chuckle. He thinks I’ve gone to the dark side. :)

What about photographers, reception hall owners, etc. There are other entities besides ministers that are involved with marriage. Because they are not part of the church per se they stand less protected against lawsuits should they refuse to participate in SSM ceremonies due to their conscience.

frank63 on May 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM

When performing marriages churches already discriminate against other religious groups and turn down people for a variety of other reasons.

Commercial activities such as photography are not protected by the first amendment. I think they should be able to turn down any business that comes their way, but when legislative bodies make laws that say otherwise the Constitution is less protective of their rights than of religious institutions.

A welcome read.

Shorter Kinsley: Disagree with her? Make it about her arguments, not her t**s.

DrSteve on May 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Is it OK to say I love her t**s?

Or brothers could marry…

Heck, what does all this do with polygamy, as well? If everybody has a right to marry whoever they want, why can’t a person marry 5 different people? Why just between two people?

It’s not about sex at all, from a legal standpoint. It’s about who gets first dibs on coordinated visas, citizenship, inheritance, adoption, etc.

All I want to know is how a gay couple is any different when it comes to raising a child than a straight couple. And if you do a little bit of research, you’ll see that kids who grow up with gay parents aren’t any worse off than any other kid. Not a bit.

JetBoy on May 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM

becasue even though homosexuals ape heterosexuals (one ‘top’ or ‘male’ and the other ‘bottom’ or ‘female’) there is no substitute for a mother and father..a real mother and father…we’ve seen what happens in the black community with illegitimate children…more crime, drugs, wasted lives…

and some butch lesbian cannot be a real father..and if you ever had kids, you’d know there’s a point where a son needs a real father..he will not listen to mother…

just as some man cannot be a real mother..children need REAL mothers…

The doctor is subject to anti-discrimination laws and many other government regulations when operating his medical practice. He should be free to attend a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong, refuses to admit gays, or refuses them the sacraments.

dedalus on May 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM

and soon it will be discrimination..a hate crime…to say that homosexuality is sinful…