Does banning same-sex marriage violate freedom of religion?

[fantome profane]

When the state imposes a law that tells a church who they are allowed to marry, how is that not a violation of their religious rights?

When the state give preferential status to the rites preformed in one church over those preformed in another how is this not a violation of religious equality?

When the state imposes a set of religious principle onto a church that does not share them how is this not a violation of religious freedom?

 

[Gunfingers]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...8506-same-sex-marriage-religious-freedom.html
???

 

[fantome profane]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...8506-same-sex-marriage-religious-freedom.html
???

Autodidact was asking if allowing same-sex marriage violates freedom of religion.
I am asking if banning same-sex violated freedom of religion.

See the difference?

 

[DadBurnett]

An interesting proposition, but it is possibly of no consequence until a "Gay Chruch" takes the battle to the courts .... It would be interesting to see what the "Supremes" would say ...

 

[gnomon]

Are there not already some United Church of Christ pastors who bless same sex marriages. If so, then that would be the group that could put forth a claim. Don't know if it would work.

 

[MoonWater]

An interesting proposition, but it is possibly of no consequence until a "Gay Chruch" takes the battle to the courts .... It would be interesting to see what the "Supremes" would say ...

Well when that happened in california gay marriage was legalized... that is of course until prop. 8 came along.

edit: actually come to think of it, I don't know if same-sex marriage was legalized in CA because of that argument or because of a different one.

 

[MoonWater]

heck it wouldn't even need to be a CHRISTIAN church. There are numerous pagan churches and covens out there who would love to marry gay couples but can't because the law forbids it. So I would say that yes banning same-sex does indeed interfere with religious freedom.

 

[Humanistheart]

Well when that happened in california gay marriage was legalized... that is of course until prop. 8 came along.

I don't think it was ever technically legal here.

The fact is church's can marry homosexuals, the same as anyone else, but unlike straight marriages it won't be legally recognized. People, particularly christians and other religious folk, forget that a religious marriage in the US means nothing. It's the marriage lisence from the state that actually affects things.

 

[TheKnight]

heck it wouldn't even need to be a CHRISTIAN church. There are numerous pagan churches and covens out there who would love to marry gay couples but can't because the law forbids it. So I would say that yes banning same-sex does indeed interfere with religious freedom.

The law does not forbid marrying homosexuals. It simply doesn't recognize those homosexual couples who view themselves as married.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't think it was ever technically legal here.

The fact is church's can marry homosexuals, the same as anyone else, but unlike straight marriages it won't be legally recognized. People, particularly christians and other religious folk, forget that a religious marriage in the US means nothing. It's the marriage lisence from the state that actually affects things.

I agree. This is the reason why banning same sex marriage does not violate freedom of religion. It's simply discriminatory is all.

 

[Humanistheart]

The law does not forbid marrying homosexuals. It simply doesn't recognize those homosexual couples who view themselves as married.

Meaning?

I'm thinking with the minor but important distinction your pointing out that the fact is those cerimonies can still be performed, observing seperation of church and state. But by not adding their legal acknowledgement to the marriages the government keeps marriage a secular issue. Is this what you were thinking?

 

[TheKnight]

Meaning?

I'm thinking with the minor but important distinction your pointing out that the fact is those cerimonies can still be performed, observing seperation of church and state. But by not adding their legal acknowledgement to the marriages the government keeps marriage a secular issue. Is this what you were thinking?

I'm basically saying that religious ceremonies for the marriage of homosexuals can still happen, they just aren't recognized by the law (should any religious marriage be recognized by the law?).

It's not really a matter of freedom of religion, or even of freedom of relationships. It's simply a matter of the government recognizing something rather than another things based on orientation. Which it shouldn't do.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm basically saying that religious ceremonies for the marriage of homosexuals can still happen, they just aren't recognized by the law (should any religious marriage be recognized by the law?).

It's not really a matter of freedom of religion, or even of freedom of relationships. It's simply a matter of the government recognizing something rather than another things based on orientation. Which it shouldn't do.

Good points.

 

[Smoke]

heck it wouldn't even need to be a CHRISTIAN church. There are numerous pagan churches and covens out there who would love to marry gay couples but can't because the law forbids it. So I would say that yes banning same-sex does indeed interfere with religious freedom.

It wouldn't even have to be a religious group. When religious teachings are given the force of law, I don't have to have a contrary religious teaching for it to be a violation of my religious freedom. The mere fact that I don't adhere to a religious teaching but have it imposed on me by the law is a violation of my religious freedom.

The ban on same-sex marriage is being perpetuated for purely religious reasons. It is, constitutionally, no different from making it illegal to sell non-kosher food.

 

[Dr. Strange]

I have to ask why Christian churches or even Pagan churches would think that just because they do marriages means that the government would require them to marry same-sex couples? Marriage in the eyes of government is a legal contract. Nothing more. To allow same-sex marriage only means that all have equal rights under the contract of marriage.

 

[SkylarHunter]

More and more I believe we need to separate religion and governments.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

When the state imposes a law that tells a church who they are allowed to marry, how is that not a violation of their religious rights?

When the state give preferential status to the rites preformed in one church over those preformed in another how is this not a violation of religious equality?

When the state imposes a set of religious principle onto a church that does not share them how is this not a violation of religious freedom?

Yes it is.