Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[TPreston]

Government being religious or not has nothing to do with them granting power to marry to priests and other religious figures. The documentations is still state documentation, it's just that you can do it at some churches. But now, that power may be stripped from many churches making the process of marriage to go to a courthouse.

If they breach the conditions of being a 501c3 yes they would have to pay their taxes, This is the same with any issue abortion, which president we should pick etc.

 

And I have no idea what you mean by the the "power grab" statement. How does a non-profit having tax exemption indicate a power grab? You really like to pull issues out of thin air TPreston.

because you are asking for special treatment for churches you cite them losing tax exempt status if they breach the conditions as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

Churches, priests and other religious figures shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples. Thats a church matter and if they feel they need protection from that, then maybe that will be a separate issue that needs to be talked about.

Yeah we might have to create some rule preventing government from interfering with the free exercise of religion... Oh wait we already friken have that and this is just a red herring for the power grab I mentioned.

[Draconian Guppy]

Would be awesome if they also refused taxes from gay people. 

Can't be bothered reading this whole thread but is this mostly dumb people cherry picking parts of the bible to deny the rights of others, while ignoring the parts of the bible they violate constantly?

Nah you got it all wrong ! We are the mistaken ones!

[FloatingFatMan]

Yeah we might have to create some rule preventing government from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

 

The solution is really quite simple, you can do one of two things.

 

1.  Create a law that gives churches the right to refuse to marry someone, you can still go to a judge etc, who can't refuse to perform it, for a secular ceremony.  

 

2.  Alternatively (and better IMO), take the legal part of a marriage away from the church completely. You go to a judge etc to get legally married and sign the license; EVERYONE does that if they want to be married.  Then after that, you can go to a church if you like for a religious ceremony so that the requirements of your faith are met.

[TPreston]

The solution is really quite simple, you can do one of two things. Either add in a law that gives churches only the right to refuse to marry someone. Alternatively (and better IMO), take the legal part of a marriage away from the church completely. You go to a judge or whatever to get legally married and sign the license. EVERYONE does.  Then after that, you can go to a church if you like for a religious ceremony so that the requirements of your faith are met.

Or just let the first amendment do its thing ?

[Emn1ty]

because you are asking for special treatment for churches you cite them losing tax exempt status if they breach the conditions as a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

So censorship. Nice. This is the government encroaching on the church, what was that thing you stated? Separation of church and state? The power grab isn't of the church, but the people opposed it. We could also just stop tax exemptions rather than letting the government use them as bargaining chips on political issues.

 

The solution is really quite simple, you can do one of two things.

 

1.  Create a law that gives churches the right to refuse to marry someone, you can still go to a judge etc, who can't refuse to perform it, for a secular ceremony.  

 

2.  Alternatively (and better IMO), take the legal part of a marriage away from the church completely. You go to a judge etc to get legally married and sign the license; EVERYONE does that if they want to be married.  Then after that, you can go to a church if you like for a religious ceremony so that the requirements of your faith are met.

 

I can agree with this, but people need to be patient and allow it to happen. The problem here is we have a situation where these things weren't in place beforehand and people are going to be on edge because of it.

[FloatingFatMan]

Or just let the first amendment do its thing ?

 

Well, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be good enough any more...

I can agree with this, but people need to be patient and allow it to happen. The problem here is we have a situation where these things weren't in place beforehand and people are going to be on edge because of it.

 

Well, if those opposed had stopped acting like babies and got together with their opponents to sort this out fairly and equitably, something sensible could be in place NOW and SCOTUS wouldn't have been forced to ram it down their throats.  I'm glad they did it, but it was always going to make a lot of people very angry.

[TPreston]

So censorship. Nice.

No it most certainly is not censorship any more than having a job is slavery if you want to be able to tell everyone vote Romney then pay your taxes and stop living off the government.

 

This is the government encroaching on the church, what was that thing you stated?

No its the church obeying the same rules as any other non profit organisation.

 

Separation of church and state? The power grab isn't of the church, but the people opposed it. We could also just stop tax exemptions rather than letting the government use them as bargaining chips on political issues.

Nobody is forcing them down the churches throat.

This is not a new issue its exactly the power grab I spoke of before.

[HawkMan]

Government being religious or not has nothing to do with them granting power to marry to priests and other religious figures. The documentations is still state documentation, it's just that you can do it at some churches. But now, that power may be stripped from many churches making the process of marriage to go to a courthouse. If more people are going to government facilities they could get crowded (especially now in states where their infrastructure isn't meant to handle it). You can't just handwave away the problems with making the changes  by saying "It shouldn't have been that way". Well sorry but it is that way. They are still problems.

 

And I have no idea what you mean by the the "power grab" statement. How does a non-profit having tax exemption indicate a power grab? You really like to pull issues out of thin air TPreston.

 

You do realize that the government clerks has to do the same amount of work wether the churches who perform a ceremony are also allowed to have the sign a legal paper. it's still the government clerks who need to process all of it, and receive the papers from the church, the only difference is they now receive the papers directly from the couple instead of the church. 

[Taliseian]

 

Set into motion, efforts like Paxton

[FloatingFatMan]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/30/3675451/texas-ag-religious-liberty/

 

Things are getting crazier and crazier.

 

I've said this before, but one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity was the invention of religion.

 

 

T

 

And the second worse thing was leaving the ocean to begin with!

[Taliseian]

And the second worse thing was leaving the ocean to begin with!

 

In all honesty, I'm beginning to agree with you on that......

 

 

T

[DConnell Member]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5144

 

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is allowing state officials to refuse to marry if they feel their religious beliefs are being harmed. 

Oh the comments on his facebook announcement are great, Texans are tearing this guy a new one and requesting he resign for putting religion above his job and the law. 

 

I just don't get why its so hard for these guys to see a non Christians point of view on this issue. If your religious views were that violated you need to step aside and let someone else who can uphold the constitutional laws do the job. 

 

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

[TPreston]

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

And im sure you guys TOTALLY! forgot to mention this when this was going on :roll:

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860

[ATLien_0]

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

Sure its reasonable, but these are officials that have an obligation to uphold the laws of the constitution. I wasn't aware that government officials could opt in or opt out of which laws they want to enforce based on their beliefs. I thought thats where separation of church and state came into play.  

 

 

@TPreston Again another case of over stepping bounds based on beliefs. Sure that official has a point about inter racial kids, but thats not her business or her job, she has to uphold the laws of the constitution. If she cares that much maybe she should switch to marriage counseling 

 

Remember these officials swore on oath to defend the laws of the constitution not the bible

[Taliseian]

Actually, I'd say his statement is a reasonable compromise. He isn't forbidding officials from marrying, but allowing them to do so or not according to their views. Nothing is preventing the couple in question from just going to another official who has no such issue. The statement doesn't prevent anyone from getting married - it just means people aren't forced to conduct the ceremony if it conflicts with their faith. I don't see it as a problem unless every official refuses, which is unlikely.

 

Did you not read the post I did a few above yours?

 

By allowing them to deny marriage on their views opens up an entire can of worms.  

 

What if you're a member of one religion and the Clerk is a member of a different one - now you're screwed because he doesn't like you.  

 

The use of any religious test or practice to deny a state service is a tacit governmental approval of one religion over another, which is completely Unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

We are supposed to have a wall of separation between Church and State, and for a good reason. 

 

 

T

[DConnell Member]

And im sure you guys TOTALLY! forgot to mention this when this was going on :roll:

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860

 

What exactly does that have to do with this particular circumstance? You just love tangents, don't you?

[TPreston]

What exactly does that have to do with this particular circumstance? You just love tangents, don't you?

Don't you approve ? Observe the unintended consequences.

[DConnell Member]

Did you not read the post I did a few above yours?

 

By allowing them to deny marriage on their views opens up an entire can of worms.  

 

What if you're a member of one religion and the Clerk is a member of a different one - now you're screwed because he doesn't like you.  

 

The use of any religious test or practice to deny a state service is a tacit governmental approval of one religion over another, which is completely Unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

We are supposed to have a wall of separation between Church and State, and for a good reason. 

 

 

T

 

I don't know of any religion that forbids couples of other faiths to marry, so that's not a valid comparison.

 

Which particular faith is being approved over the others in this case? Most have a prohibition when it come to gay marriage, so they would be equally served in this case. So it's not approval of one religion over another, but a protection of freedom of religion. An upholding of the Constitution, rather than a violation.

 

But I thought in this case it was performing the ceremony that was being left up to the officials. When did it become about the paperwork?

 

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

 

How about a compromise that protects the gays' right to marry without compromising the religious freedoms of the officials? There has to be a middle ground. Certainly arguing over whose freedoms are being violated more accomplishes nothing.

[TPreston]

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

So you support the actions of this justice of peace ??? http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860 ?

[FloatingFatMan]

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

 

Law overrides beliefs. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.

[Taliseian]

But I thought in this case it was performing the ceremony that was being left up to the officials. When did it become about the paperwork?

 

The forcing of a person to violate their religious beliefs is also completely unconstitutional, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

 

umm...did you not read the quote from the article?

 

Let me quote it again....emphasis mine....

 

 

 

Set into motion, efforts like Paxton

[DConnell Member]

So you support the actions of this justice of peace ??? http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20091015/ARTICLES/910159860 ?

 

 If there's a religious element there it isn't mentioned, so this case isn't relevant. Once again, you're veering off on a tangent.

[DConnell Member]

umm...did you not read the quote from the article?

 

Let me quote it again....emphasis mine....

 

 

A state employee would now have the right to look at your paperwork and refuse to perform the job they have been assigned to do because of religion.  That is a violation of the First Amendment because there can be no religious test or law applied to any government action.  If a state employee is using a religious test as part of their job and denies you service, you could sue and there would be a thousand lawyers at your beck and call that would love to take this case.

 

 

T

 

That's just speculation at this point. If concerns about churches possibly being expected to marry gay couples (regardless of their laws) are not an issue yet (as both Hawkman and TPreston have stated) then neither is this.

[Taliseian]

...sigh...

 

You didn't read it completely.

 

**This is already happening in North Carolina**

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/north-carolina-gay-marriage_n_7561886.html

 

 

The law effectively allows magistrates to opt out of performing same-sex, or even interracial or interfaith, marriages. If an official declines to officiate a marriage on religious grounds, that official will be barred from performing any marriages for a period of six months.

 

For some people, that's a small price to pay for their religious beliefs - and I'll bet they'll claim that they're being persecuted for their faith on top of it....which is completely wrong.

 

You can't use religion as an excuse to be discriminatory.  

 

 

T

[DConnell Member]

...sigh...

 

You didn't read it completely.

 

**This is already happening in North Carolina**

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/north-carolina-gay-marriage_n_7561886.html

 

 

For some people, that's a small price to pay for their religious beliefs - and I'll bet they'll claim that they're being persecuted for their faith on top of it....which is completely wrong.

 

You can't use religion as an excuse to be discriminatory.  

 

 

T

 

Honestly, as stated in that article, it reads more like the law is against declining - you can't officiate at a wedding for 6 months after you decline for religious reasons. Since when is a 6 month suspension, even if just in one area, considered allowing? Seems more like punishment.

 

So in NC you can opt out, at the cost of 6 months of work (in that one function at least). Where is the allowing in that?