Sqrl said:
ManusJustus said:
halogamer1989 said:
ManusJustus said:
Thats a silly argument. Legally speaking, marrying one adult to one other adult is as simple as you can make it.
What if a preacher didn't want to marry a white and black couple? And whats the difference between that and a preacher refusing to marry a same sex couple?
|
It's not about the preacher/minister/official but about the ramifications of a case if he refused to marry gays and the gay protection force or whatever the heck they use to advance their LGBT XYZ and all the hell else agenda takes it to the courts. Then the courts would have to force the preacher to marry them b/c by the amended statute gays would be entitled to marry. What results is the state telling a church (a NGO) what to do and separation of church and state is blown out the window.
SoCaS is there for protection of religions against the govt, not the advancement of secularization.
|
No one is or will be forcing preachers to marry people. A preacher can refuse to marry two straight, white people if he wants to.
|
As far as most reasonable folks go and under normal circumstances...this is true. But as soon as someone whose entire family has been married in a specific church comes along and asks the ACLU to sue the church to force them to allow the ceremony there. Or any number of circumstances that could arise to create a lawsuit like this.
I realize you're saying that you would be argue against that case (I think that is what you're saying here), but that is the type of situation that Halogamer is concerned about (if I read him correctly).
Just my take on it.
|
More or less Sqrl. That case would be like the second coming of Roe v. Wade. Talk about your controversy being ramped up in an already partisan America.
