About Hardliner4freedom


Gender:
male
Member Since:
July 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
March 15, 2008
Profile Views:
26846
Blog Views:
13815
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent
A "Christian Nation" -- Impossible Even By Religious Right's Criteria
The Only Gay Marriage Argument You'll Ever Need
My Thoughts on the In God We Trust Scare
A Spooky (And True) Story of Precognition
World's 3rd Richest Man Says Taxes on the Rich Are Too Low
New Right's War on the Constitution: The Under-Reported Truth
Religious Right Group's Belief in Religious Freedom Does Not Extend to Others
Take The Time To Fight Phishing
Creationist Betrays True Motives (Again)
Archives
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
Onward Bound

News, views, and professional iconoclasm from the green side of libertarianism.

About the graphic:  Created by Yours Truly using Ray Dream Studio.

-

Take The Time To Fight Phishing

 

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


Hardliner4freedom - > Starship Sigma +5 -> Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent
Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent

Not long ago, Wayfarer expressed concern that gay marriage proponents might end up wanting to force their beliefs on churches that didn't agree with them:

"In Canada it is already a crime for some one preach against homosexuality.  How soon, before it happens in the US.  Perhaps in the future, it will be a crime for clergy to refuse to bless same sex marriages."

Some time ago I had occasion to opine on a possible real-life case.  Here is what I wrote on my sister site regarding a situation resembling what he described:

________________________

Wall of Separation Must Be Two-Way -- Both Ways

No, the title isn't redundant.

According to a Courier Post editorial, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a local Methodist church must allow a same-sex civil union to take place on its property.

In principle, this should never be.  In the same way that governments must fulfill their still largely unfulfilled obligation to recognize same-sex marriage ceremonies performed by churches who deem them sacred and legitimate, a church that opposes same-sex marriage must have it's beliefs and rights respected as well.

No church -- whether it supports or opposes same-sex marriage -- should have its teachings and beliefs overridden by the government with its own walls or on its own property.

(Nevermind that this particular civil wrong is currently being perpetrated against churches that do recognize same-sex marriage.  Governments across the nation are unlawfully dictating to churches the meaning of the particular sacred rite known as marriage, by dictating to them that legitimate marriage must be one-man, one-woman.)

The sticking point, according to New Jersey's Star-Ledger, is the fact that the church received public money to refurbish buildings and maintain the beach.  When you accept government money, you accept the government's attached strings.

Churches that eagerly want to tap into government subsidies should think twice about their religious liberties before welcoming into their sanctuaries the regulations that come with government dollars.

And churches that object to the government ordering them to allow same-sex civil unions on their property ought to do the right thing, and oppose it when other governments try to tell other churches that same-sex unions are not valid, even when such other churches believe that they are.

_________

.

There.  Now I've had my views tested from the other side.

No freedom is true freedom unless it respects the freedoms of those whom we disagree with.

 

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 93 times
7 comments from 6 users

1

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Oct 10, 2007 at 07:23 PM
This ought to please Wayfarer...
posted by randomfactor on Oct 11, 2007 at 08:02 AM
Why?  *HE* doesn't go both ways.
posted by Wayfarer on Oct 13, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Yeah thanks, Hard.
posted by TomW on Oct 13, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Very well done, again.  In mind mind, the only solution is to uncouple the sacred from the civil.
posted by sfinboston52 on Oct 14, 2007 at 08:17 AM
TomW...I agree...all marriages should be a civil union and then churches could bless those they wish to bless, but not have the right to grant a marriage license. Though the far right will not agree to this since it is all about power and controling people, which the far right w/ people like Rush, Ann Coulter and Marylee are scared of having a society were all citizens are equal under the law.
posted by NancyII on Oct 14, 2007 at 09:04 AM

"When you accept government money, you accept the government's attached strings."  RE: Government aid.  I've said it before and repeat it often.  "When you make love to a gorilla, you aren't done 'til the gorilla says you're done."

If churches don't want the government telling them how to do their business, then they should remain non profit and pay their own way.

At one time years back, a preacher in FL started marrying senior citizens without the benefit of a marriage license because they didn't want to live in sin and if they had legally married, would have lost financial benefits.  I applauded him then and still believe he did the right thing.  California enacted the Domestic Partner law to allow seniors to keep their retirement in a relationship and also be eligible for benefits, but it still doesn't address the issue of the church blessing.  Pastors should be allowed to perform that ceremony for anyone they feel is entitled to it.  The government should have no say in that matter.

posted by sfinboston52 on Oct 14, 2007 at 09:20 AM

Nancy we agree, I don't want to see the gov. inside churches telling minister what they can or cant say. Nor do I want this gov. to tell people how to worship. On the other than I don't want churches inside our gov. tell people by law how they have to live based on their own religious beliefs.

 

1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement