Do churches have the right to refuse to perform a marriage?

[VIDEODROME]

Luckily her ex husband agreed to the annulment. You obviously do not have any idea of how that works.

I know someone who'd former husband got into drugs and just ran off. It's difficult to do a full proper divorce or annulment with him absent.

 

[fr33]

I hope those images make you feel good about yourself. It's like closing your eyes and ignoring priest raping kids. Goddamn you are fucking retarded.

You dismiss so easily domestic abuse and promote the Catholic churches method of blaming the victim. Disgusting piece of shit.

 

[fr33]

I know someone who'd former husband got into drugs and just ran off. It's difficult to do a full proper divorce or annulment with him absent.

Exactly. It's infuriating how fucking retarded these people are.

 

[TheGrinch]

Its not like gay marriage is new, this has already been thoroughly debated and decided as far as I know.

Churches are protected by the first amendment to not have to perform a service they don't want to.

I of course think this should apply to the bakers, florists, and anyone else involved in a wedding too, but that was never a debate about whether churches have to. They don't.

 

[fr33]

My sister in law tried to get an annulment. Her ex refused. The catholic church's only solution is to stay with him. You are a fuck-stick with images ridiculing me but you'll probaly never find a good catholic girl either that would put up with this shit. Go fuck yourself, you sheltered moron.

 

[hells_unicorn]

The Covenanter position is pretty straightforward on this point, we don't acknowledge the authority of godless governments when they seek to enshrine violations against the moral law as state policy, and David Steele and his party that resisted the so-called "New Light" movement of the Reformed Presbyterians of the 19th century pretty well predicted where all of this was leading. We're extremely small in number, but we have taken a hard-line on anything involving direct involvement with the U.S. federal government due to allowances made in the U.S. Constitution that pretty much paved the way for stuff like this. We're not incorporated, no 501(c)3, we don't and will never provide chaplains for the military, military service is generally regarded as being the same as signing up with Caesar during the persecution of the church, we claim a religious objection to jury duty on similar grounds, and anyone who violates our regulative principles as drawn from the Solemn League and Covenant (including the prohibition on Occasional Hearing and the principles of political dissent) are bound to disciplinary action, including excommunication for unrepentant, habitual violations. In light of all this, any person who would openly condone homosexual unions or otherwise suggest that our ministers perform them would probably want nothing to do with us, mostly because of a laundry list of other things that we don't dignify with a debate.

To answer the OP's question, any legitimate church will not marry anyone who isn't a communicate member in good standing with the church. We generally recognize marriages performed outside of our church if and when families come to us for the purpose of converting (we generally don't re-baptize anyone either unless they were baptized in an invalid fashion such as a non-trinitarian baptism via the Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormons), but scandalous people are not married in our church prior to repentance and a period of probation.

I don't think any church can be bound to violate their own doctrines by the civil magistrate, but any church that bought into the notion of sharing a government with pagans, libertines and atheists was asking for a state of being compelled by force to violate their constitutions, and it will eventually happen, mark my words. It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS that foisted this recent decree on everyone is majority Roman Catholic, which is largely unsurprising to me, but I'm sure all of the weekend conservative types whining about this out there actually thought that the RCC cares about the sanctity of marriage. You'd think that the Son of Perdition and Jesuit plant Francis I would be handing out excommunication notices to Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy for this rather than worrying about the Sci-Fi threat of a global warming Armageddon, but alas, false prophets care only for false prophecy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

My sister in law tried to get an annulment. Her ex refused. The catholic church's only solution is to stay with him. You are a fuck-stick with images ridiculing me but you'll probaly never find a good catholic girl either that would put up with this shit. Go fuck yourself, you sheltered moron.

No, you fuck yourself. I don't know enough about the RCC's position on this to speak about it intelligently. Perhaps your SIL could talk with another priest about it. I'm not RC, but my priest is, in my experience, interested in considering all options in bad situations. A parish, after all, is a family-not just an impersonal bunch of people who hang out on Sunday.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The Covenanter position is pretty straightforward on this point, we don't acknowledge the authority of godless governments, and David Steele and his party that resisted the so-called "New Light" movement of the Reformed Presbyterians of the 19th century pretty well predicted where all of this was leading. We're extremely small in number, but we have taken a hard-line on anything involving direct involvement with the U.S. federal government due to allowances made in the U.S. Constitution that pretty much paved the way for stuff like this. We're not incorporated, no 501(c)3, we don't and will never provide chaplains for the military, military service is generally regarded as being the same as signing up with Caesar during the persecution of the church, we claim a religious objection to jury duty on similar grounds, and anyone who violates our regulative principles as drawn from the Solemn League and Covenant (including the prohibition on Occasional Hearing and the principles of political dissent) are bound to disciplinary action, including excommunication for unrepentant, habitual violations. In light of all this, any person who would openly condone homosexual unions or otherwise suggest that our ministers perform them would probably want nothing to do with us, mostly because of a laundry list of other things that we don't dignify with a debate.

To answer the OP's question, any legitimate church will not marry anyone who isn't a communicate member in good standing with the church. We generally recognize marriages performed outside of our church if and when families come to us for the purpose of converting (we generally don't re-baptize anyone either unless they were baptized in an invalid fashion such as a non-trinitarian baptism via the Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormons), but scandalous people are not married in our church prior to repentance and a period of probation.

I don't think any church can be bound to violate their own doctrines by the civil magistrate, but any church that bought into the notion of sharing a government with pagans, libertines and atheists was asking for a state of being compelled by force to violate their constitutions, and it will eventually happen, mark my words. It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS that foisted this recent decree on everyone is majority Roman Catholic, which is largely unsurprising to me, but I'm sure all of the weekend conservative types whining about this out there actually thought that the RCC cares about the sanctity of marriage. You'd think that the Son of Perdition and Jesuit plant Francis I would be handing out excommunication notices to Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy for this rather than worrying about the Sci-Fi threat of a global warming Armageddon, but alas, false prophets care only for false prophecy.

Much respect to the folks at your church for being autocephalous. I'm a fan of it myself.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Much respect to the folks at your church for being autocephalous. I'm a fan of it myself.

Much obliged bro. It's one of the principles that the Scottish Covenanters generally held in common with the Eastern Orthodox, though a lot of the American affiliates started liberalizing during the late 19th century, largely due to how the Civil War completely altered the politics of America. We likewise are in a state of union with other congregations in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey, and we are currently in a state of dialogue with several congregations in The Philippines believe it or not.

We are still interested in the broader state of Christendom, particularly those that still hold to the Trinitarian faith, but it's been pretty depressing lately how messy things have gotten and it's been a practice of ours of late to disregard some of the controversies going on in so-called Mainline churches because it's all rehashed stuff from the first 5 centuries of the church era.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The Covenanter position is pretty straightforward on this point, we don't acknowledge the authority of godless governments when they seek to enshrine violations against the moral law as state policy, and David Steele and his party that resisted the so-called "New Light" movement of the Reformed Presbyterians of the 19th century pretty well predicted where all of this was leading. We're extremely small in number, but we have taken a hard-line on anything involving direct involvement with the U.S. federal government due to allowances made in the U.S. Constitution that pretty much paved the way for stuff like this. We're not incorporated, no 501(c)3, we don't and will never provide chaplains for the military, military service is generally regarded as being the same as signing up with Caesar during the persecution of the church, we claim a religious objection to jury duty on similar grounds, and anyone who violates our regulative principles as drawn from the Solemn League and Covenant (including the prohibition on Occasional Hearing and the principles of political dissent) are bound to disciplinary action, including excommunication for unrepentant, habitual violations. In light of all this, any person who would openly condone homosexual unions or otherwise suggest that our ministers perform them would probably want nothing to do with us, mostly because of a laundry list of other things that we don't dignify with a debate.

To answer the OP's question, any legitimate church will not marry anyone who isn't a communicate member in good standing with the church. We generally recognize marriages performed outside of our church if and when families come to us for the purpose of converting (we generally don't re-baptize anyone either unless they were baptized in an invalid fashion such as a non-trinitarian baptism via the Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormons), but scandalous people are not married in our church prior to repentance and a period of probation.

I don't think any church can be bound to violate their own doctrines by the civil magistrate, but any church that bought into the notion of sharing a government with pagans, libertines and atheists was asking for a state of being compelled by force to violate their constitutions, and it will eventually happen, mark my words. It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS that foisted this recent decree on everyone is majority Roman Catholic, which is largely unsurprising to me, but I'm sure all of the weekend conservative types whining about this out there actually thought that the RCC cares about the sanctity of marriage. You'd think that the Son of Perdition and Jesuit plant Francis I would be handing out excommunication notices to Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy for this rather than worrying about the Sci-Fi threat of a global warming Armageddon, but alas, false prophets care only for false prophecy.

I'm for jury service, not out of loyalty to the state, but in order to undermine the system (jury nullification.)

That said, overall this is the type of church I want to be in

 

[hells_unicorn]

I'm for jury service, not out of loyalty to the state, but in order to undermine the system (jury nullification.)

That said, overall this is the type of church I want to be in

The problem with jury nullification from the Covenanter position is the oath that is sworn during jury duty, which is considered to be illicit unless the court and corresponding magistrate recognize the true religion. Generally the position is closer to secession than open resistance, though it's not a total secession and there are other areas where Christian prudence makes allowances for activity in a court room, particularly regarding giving testimony or defending oneself in court. Thankfully Pennsylvania allows an affirmation for those who have an objection to the Anglican flavor of how the court administers oaths.

If you're curious, my minister has a large number of sermons and studies on the Westminister Catechisms available for download at the following link, including a lengthy ongoing series on Post-Millennialism.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jim_Dodson

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm asking because I don't know. Someone is saying that if churches don't want to perform gay marriages, then they need to give up their tax exempt status. I'm for gay marriage, but it's wrong to force anti-gay churches to perform them. So before this ruling today, did churches reserve the right to not perform a marriage for straight couples for whatever reason?

The churches have never been restricted in who they can or cannot marry. This is purely about bureaucratic nonsense and licenses you have to get in order to be "officially" married. It has nothing to do with what you can or can't do outside of these bureaucratic arrangements. Likewise, couples, gay or straight, have not been restricted in who they could take to church and marry. It's all about the license.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see a "joke" there. The RCC holds that divorced people can't remarry. It's not a big secret or anything. If you don't want to deal with that, either wait till you're mature enough to pick a lifelong spouse or join another religion. If you dig enough, you can probably find something you disagree with in every religion and in atheism.

Uh... you sure you want to go with that response? The post was comparing divorce and priests raping little kids. The "joke" seems apparent to me even if I didn't think it was funny.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Exactly. It's infuriating how fucking retarded these people are.

Apparently I was too late to stop the childish shit-flinging that was bound to ensue.

 

[Anti Federalist]

If the courts can force/fine you for not baking a cake for a wedding or refusing to be their paid photographer I fail to see why they can't do the same to priests/ministers/churches.

Bingo.

And they will you revocation of 501(3)-c status as the compliance tool.

 

[Terry1]

Wouldn't a "church" fall under a different set of rules and guidelines though opposed to a "business for profit" to serve the general public? I think an argument could possibly be made for a non-profit organization such as a "church" whose intent and sole purpose is to serve it's own beliefs and practices and under certain religious statutes is free then to refuse complying with something or anything that goes against those same said beliefs and practices as long as it's not considered "illegal" under state and federal statutes.

 

[oyarde]

I'm asking because I don't know. Someone is saying that if churches don't want to perform gay marriages, then they need to give up their tax exempt status. I'm for gay marriage, but it's wrong to force anti-gay churches to perform them. So before this ruling today, did churches reserve the right to not perform a marriage for straight couples for whatever reason?

Yes .

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Wouldn't a "church" fall under a different set of rules and guidelines though opposed to a "business for profit" to serve the general public?

Yes. It's called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Wouldn't a "church" fall under a different set of rules and guidelines though opposed to a "business for profit" to serve the general public? I think an argument could possibly be made for a non-profit organization such as a "church" whose intent and sole purpose is to serve it's own beliefs and practices and under certain religious statutes is free then to refuse complying with something or anything that goes against those same said beliefs and practices as long as it's not considered "illegal" under state and federal statutes.

That's fine, but Uncle Sam has decreed itself the final word on what is "illegal" under federal statues, so you can look forward to plenty of arguments that these churches are actually the ones violating the freedom of sodomites looking to have a mock wedding, much the way a police officer might punch you in the face and then arrest you for assaulting his fist.

The minute these churches played into this non-profit status nonsense with Uncle Sam, they became his subjects, and they will either obey or be punished.

Yes. It's called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

One man's First Amendment rights is another man's Hate Speech. It all depends on the whims of 51% of the electorate that actually shows up.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

One man's First Amendment rights is another man's Hate Speech. It all depends on the whims of 51% of the electorate that actually shows up.

Not really. Hate speech is protected. See Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), involving the Westboro Baptist Church.