So in states where same-sex marriage IS legal, what should happen to churches who won't do them?

[Common Sense Party]

So, in Iowa, Mass, Connecticut...if a same-sex couple goes to a church and wants to be wed, and the priest/pastor/bishop refuses on the basis that they are of the same gender, WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO THAT CHURCH?

[eyesroll]

1. Nothing.

Churches already aren't obligated to marry divorcees, non-members of the faith, people who don't go through premarital counseling, and so forth.

[Nikki Stone1]

3. Agreed. I also say we should open more tolerant denominations and let churches compete

I'm sure the conservative churches like competition. It's a good thing in the economy, it should be good in the religious marketplace too.

[Aristus]

2. Nothing. Churches have the right to refuse something like that. Where churches go wrong

is forcing everyone, by law, to adhere to their way of thinking, no matter how bigoted. Just leave them alone. A church built upon hatred is no kind of church at all...

[Booster]

4. What Aristus said.

[billyoc]

5. They don't have to marry hetero couples, either.

[SeattleGirl]

6. Nothing.

Marriage, bottom line, is sanctioned by the state, not the church.

[whoneedstickets]

7. No church should be forced, by the state, to marry anyone...

..church is the cultural and ceremonial, BUT NOT legal, home of marriage. Marriage is a secular, legal bond between couples. This is a terrible poll.

[Orrex]

8. Could they be forcibly converted into ice cream parlors?

[Common Sense Party]

9. Yummy! Rocky Road to Damascus!

That's my favorite.

[spoony]

26. LOL!

Made my night :D

[Nikki Stone1]

12. LOL!!!

My first laugh today.

Thank you!

:)

[jakefrep]

48. I prefer that they be converted to breweries.

But I like ice cream too.

[NMMNG]

10. Nothing, which is as it should be.

Churches aren't obligated to marry anybody, ever. They don't have to marry atheists or agnostics. They aren't required to marry people of faiths other than their own. And despite fearmongering BS claims to the contrary (which is one of the ways they con people into voting against rights for LGBT people) they'll never be required to marry same-sex couples or face lawsuits for refusing to do so.

[Common Sense Party]

13. That's exactly why I posted this. I heard someone use this argument

recently. I figured there would be slim to no support for going after these churches.

[NMMNG]

14. There is none

Not only is it illegal but we have no interest in attending or being married by their bigoted churches. They're just bloody liars trying to scare people into thinking they're perpetual victims instead of perpetual victimizers.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Nothing, let them wallow in their filth. nt

[sutz12]

15. Sorry, but that is just silly....

Separation of church and state is just that. If a church won't marry you, don't attend that church. It's pretty simple, really. But to apply legal sanctions for what is a religious decision would be very improper.

[Common Sense Party]

16. 2 votes so far for taking away tax exempt status. Who thinks we should

do this? How would we do this?

Just curious--is there any legal consequence if a church refuses to marry, say, a black man and a white woman?

[anonymous171]

17. BURN THEM! nt

[Common Sense Party]

19. Sorry, I must have forgotten that poll option.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

35. YOU DON'T LIKE ICE CREAM? N/T

[GoddessOfGuinness]

18. Are there still any churches who refuse to allow mixed-race marriages?

If so, what consequences do they face for their bigotry?

[Common Sense Party]

20. That's what I just asked, too.

I don't know.

[Lex]

21. NO CHURCH has to marry anyone (straight or gay) they don't want to!

There is no difference here.

WTF?

[Common Sense Party]

23. WTF is that some people think "the gays" will be trying to

retaliate or "force" churches to accept same-sex marriages.

I didn't think there would be any support for punishing those churches.

[Chovexani]

22. Nothing

Forcing religious institutions to recognize marriages contrary to their beliefs, no matter how bigoted those beliefs are, is wrong.

Fortunately, there are a plethora of Christian denominations and other progressive faith groups who have no problem whatsoever sanctifying same-sex marriages. My religion is one of them (I am Pagan).

[MadMaddie]

24. Why would a gay couple go to a church that hates them?

It's about the civil right to marry not forcing churches to marry.

Let the hate monger churches waddle in their own spew....

[NNN0LHI]

27. To pray to the magic superbeing who lives in the clouds?

:eyes:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

25. The Unitarian Universalists don't have a problem with it.

They have a specific designation known as a "welcoming congregation" for LGBT people.

www.uua.org

[proteus_lives]

28. Nothing.

We may disagree with their views but it's their religious right not to perform or approve of same-sex marriage.

[TahitiNut]

29. Other: They should lose any and all members with intelligence, empathy, and fair-mindedness.

... along with their tithes.

:shrug:

[musicblind]

30. Nothing, even in NC there are plenty of Christian Churches here that WANT to perform gay marriages

[aikoaiko]

31. Nothing. Clearly protected by the 1st amendment.

IMHO.

[Thothmes]

36. Bingo

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is often overlooked on this forum.

[Craftsman]

46. Exactly

[regnaD kciN]

32. Nothing, and we should stop even suggesting otherwise...

Religious institutions have the right to set their own rules. Period.

In fact, a key canard spread by the Prop H8 crowd was that, if same-sex marriage was legalized, clergy could be locked up and churches seized if they didn't marry same-sex couples, even if it was against their own tenets. Ridiculous, of course, but that's just the sort of hot-button framing (just like the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment insisting that, if it passed, all bathrooms would have to be unisex) that sways uncritical minds, and may well have made the difference last November.

[Lex]

49. exactly

nt

[Smith_3]

33. Nothing. Marriage is a legal contract regardless of any religious ceremony. Churches are irrelevant.

[tavalon]

34. Separation of church and state

Sorry, they don't get any penalty from the government for being unwilling to do a religious ceremony.

[tsuki]

37. Nothing should happen, but they should lose their tax exempt status for

other reasons.

[TexasObserver]

38. All churches should lose their tax exempt status, except for charitable works.

I don't think the issue of exempt status should be based upon their doctrines, but upon their actually doing real charitable work. That would exclude at least 95% of the expenditures of churches. They're social clubs that promote the biases and beliefs of that particular set of individuals. Give them tax exemption when they raise money for food for the needy, or such, but not for building huge buildings and furnishing them with outrageously priced stuff, or to spew their propaganda.

As for churches that refuse to marry gays in states that allow such marriages, I would say to allow public scorn of those churches be the response. Even good churches are usually bad uses of tax exempt money. Why should the tax code subsidize the religious and their attempts to spread their beliefs?

[eridani]

39. Stupid question. It's like asking what should be done with rabbis who won't marry

--people who aren't Jewish. Or Catholic priests who won't remarry divorced people. Marriage equality is about being able to go to a Justice of the Peace in the event that you can't find a suitable religious venue--of which there are plenty.

[AngryOldDem]

40. You don't need a church to make anything legal.

To me, a church ceremony is only important if it's important to the couple involved. A church refusing to do anything that is (or should be) protected in the legal realm should have no bearing on anything.

[Kellen RN]

41. Nothing should happen to them, however

in super mega hypothetical land, when gay marriage is legal in my home state, Oklahoma (somewhere around the year 2932 I predict), where are they going to go get married?

I only wonder because most of the counties around here no longer have court marriages. My wife (an atheist) and me (an atheist) had to drive over two hours to get married in a court house. In fact... thats really fucked up. I mean we could of just bullshited some local protestant pastor or something but that goes against everything we and our family stands for. We looked everywhere for a secular person to marry us and couldn't find anybody locally to do it. We even looked for a buddhist to do it. Ah... how I love the bible belt...

[HamdenRice]

42. Nothing. The Catholic Church won't marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic. A Rabbi won't marry Baptists

They have the right of free exercise of religion and of association.

Not to mention how politically suicidal it would be to go after churches and synagogues to force them to perform services they don't want to perform.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

43. Nothing, Churches can already refuse to marry people for whatever reason

[stray cat]

44. How can you take away their civil liberties in the name of civil liberty

Marriage doesn't require a church.

[EFerrari]

50. Exacrly. n/t

[calico1]

45. Nothing...

Separation of Church and State, remember? How can we demand it from Republicans and complain when they do not abide by it, then turn around and do the same thing they do?

No Church should be FORCED to marry ANYONE, gay or not.

[SidDithers]

47. Nothing...

but churches who don't want to marry same-sex couples shouldn't be able to force all churches to not marry same sex couples.

Sid

[donheld]

51. Not a damn thing

We should allow them their beliefs, just not force us to follow those beliefs. We are not about trying to force them to follow our belief in same-sex anything, just allow us to do our own thing. If they let us be, we'll let them be.

[tammywammy]

52. Nothing. n/t

[Xithras]

53. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The constitution says flat out that the government is powerless to tell churches how to run themselves. If a church does not want to accept gay members, does not want to marry them on religious grounds, or wants to preach that homosexual marriage is wrong, that is their right.

Society has a right to muzzle and control religious leaders when they try to bring their sermons and beliefs into the public arena, but within their own walls they can spread whatever idiocy they choose.

To punish a religion for its beliefs would be a blatant violation of the first amendment, and would be struck down by the Supremes anyway.