Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You are totally reading my brain waves now. Get out of my head!!
lol

Seriously, that is exactly what I was just about to post too. I just realized that the problem is that there is Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage. Somehow they've allowed Religious Marriage to include Legal Civil Marriage as well by default when this shouldn't be the case. In fact, it's a violation of Church and State IMO. Had there never been the cross over there would be no problem. Religious Marriage would then be just that alone without being tied to the Legal aspect of it. Civil Marriage is all the state should be concerned with and should be the only thing determining if people are Legally Married.

All these problems are once again caused by not respecting the true meaning of separation of church and state. I keep saying it too. Separation is the only way to protect both the State and Religion from trying rule each other.

a reply to: Tangerine
Somebody responded to one of my posts and said
they had made a bet with someone that I could not
give an example of when the government forced me
to have an opinion on anything.

That post I made, was in response to someone
who had made a comment that he was sick and tired
of the government forcing opinions on everybody, which was
relevant to the topic because I had to agree that the
government making a law that interferes with The
Constitutional right of the freedom of religion.

BTW I'm not religious, but I do believe in the Constitution
and therefore I believe that religious institutions should
not be interfered with by the government as to how they
practice their religion within reason obviously.

Since many churches have and still do refuse to marry
same sex partners, I don't see this new law as being reasonable.

And, why would a gay couple want to go to a church that
is homophobic anyway, their are many churches that will
marry same sex couples.

I'm not religious but I'm also not atheist, but I just don't
get this how gay people want the right to go to church,
especially churches that are homophobic.

I've discussed this with many friends who do exactly this.

I myself am gay, and I used to go to a homophobic church,
and I asked myself, "What the hell am I doing. It makes no sense.
Am I trying to torture myself, or am I trying to interfere with
the freedom of religion."

so, if it was off topic, it was only because the entire quotes
weren't copied.
And if it is off topic, the moderators certainly can remove it.

It wasn't my intention to be off topic if I was.

Rebel 5

a reply to: rebelv

I don't have a problem with anything you wrote except for the fact that if you're talking about this thread you should know that "The Hitching Post" isn't a church. In fact it only just recently has been reclassified to a Religious Organization by changing their policies to only participate in Christian Weddings. Before that change they did Weddings of Other Faiths as well as Non-Religious Civil Weddings as well. As far as I know they have never done Gay Weddings though.

Ok, that's it. Just an FYI.

Did you know marriage without government is illegal? Neither did I.

Has there ever been a law against having a religious only marriage? Not that I know.

Marriage Without License Prevents "strange gods" From Controlling Families

A Christian marriage without license from the State is necessary for the couple seeking to wed so they may honor the First Commandment.

God cannot bless a union that violates the Commandments.

The First Commandment requires that neither Christians nor their ministers enslave themselves by allegiance to the law of strange gods that replaces their allegiance to God who freed them from slavery.

You cannot serve God and mammon...it is either one or the other but not both.

First, let's look at what a license actually is.

Second, let's then look at what actually gets licensed.

This definition says that a marriage without license from the State is illegal; a privilege that may not be exercised without government authority!

Now any thinking person knows that marriage is as old as humanity. If there was any permission to be granted it was usually granted by the bride's family not by a state or tribal government. Marriage licenses only came into existence in America after the civil war...and for a very specific kind of marriage that did require a marriage license application.

But, the above definition says clearly that, if marriage must be licensed, marriage without license is illegal if not licensed by the state.

But, marriage as such has never been illegal in any society.

In all Christian societies, marriage is a contract called into existence and maintained under a religious covenant by two and only two people, a man and a woman.

DAMN - that's the wrong link. I'm looking for the right one
OOPS: forgot link covenantmarriage.com...

CORRECT LINK: www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org...

a reply to: Annee

Sounds like all the more reason to separate the two types of marriage then. Civil Marriage being a Legal Marriage and State Sanctioned that comes with all the State controlled benefits. Then Religious Marriage being ordained by the Church/God and dictated by whatever is established by the Church. Both being recognized only by it's appropriate authority and not by the other.

All problems solved then in the Marriage Debate.

BTW, do you have a link for that new info?? Where did it come from??

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

Sounds like all the more reason to separate the two types of marriage then. Civil Marriage being a Legal Marriage and State Sanctioned that comes with all the State controlled benefits. Then Religious Marriage being ordained by the Church/God and dictated by whatever is established by the Church. Both being recognized only by it's appropriate authority and not by the other.

All problems solved then in the Marriage Debate.

BTW, do you have a link for that new info?? Where did it come from??

Yep. Let the Knapps perform Christian only "Covenant" weddings.

They should not be allowed to do Legal Government Marriages. You know the Licensed ones, with the tax breaks etc ---- that they want to deny gays.

originally posted by: mOjOm

BTW, do you have a link for that new info?? Where did it come from??

Posted it above.

Notice the young cute white people on their website.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: mOjOm

BTW, do you have a link for that new info?? Where did it come from??

Posted it above.

Notice the young cute white people on their website.

Works both ways doesn't it.

For Christian Lovers Only

The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries

a reply to: Annee

I don't know if I'm reading it right but wouldn't that also make all Legal marriages done by the Church but licensed by the State Invalid by church ruling???

Since by the Church Law "A Christian marriage without license from the State is necessary for the couple seeking to wed so they may honor the First Commandment."

So everyone who's currently Married by the Church and Licensed by the state to be legal has actually gone against Religious Rules. Making every Religious Person who is Married in Violation of their own Religious Laws??

Funny that no body within the Church has ever bothered to point that out. Would that be another example of the Church either cherry picking or completely ignoring their own rules???

a reply to: xuenchen

What part of those links are we supposed to be looking at???

a reply to: mOjOm

Oh, you are reading it right.

Don't get trampled by all those Christians ending their legal government licensed marriage.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

What part of those links are we supposed to be looking at???

He's just pointing out that black churches have black people.

a reply to: Annee

Lol.

Something tells me they'll have some excuse about why it's actually perfectly ok. I doubt they want to lose the privileges they get from the state by being married.

Then again, if they were true to their faith they should probably more concerned by the fact that they disobeyed God's Law. Although, it's more the fault of the Church for not informing them first and also for knowing joining themselves with the state in the first place. But who knows, God may blame both the Church and them equally for all I know.

To bad God isn't around for them to find out for sure, since obviously they can't trust the Church to know the rules either.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

By your statements, am I to undestand that, despite their claims that they have only performed ceremonies that were consistent with their religious convictions, and despite their claims that they have performed literally hundreds of ceremonies over the years, and despite their claims that their chapel is a very sought-after place due to the proximity of the clerk office, and despite their claims that they will only perform the ceremory if the person signs a contract stating that the ceremory they are requesting to be performed does not go against the religious convictions of the Knapps, and despite their claims that performing a ceremory against their convictions would cost them their license... despite all those claims, is your position that they have only refused two same-sex marriages in all theirs years of operations, since they are the only ones listed in the document? Is that your position? Please, clarify, lest I misrepresent it.

And as for your second statement, lest I misreprest it as well, please state clearly how do you interpret items 309 to 313 of the document, quoted as follows:

309. Mr. Knapp also asked if he was exempt from the ordinance since he was an
ordained minister.
310. Wilson responded that Mr. Knapp would have to perform same-sex wedding
ceremonies because of the Coeur d’Alene ordinance.
311. Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance
because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church.
312. Mr. Knapp asked what would happen if he refused to perform the same-sex
wedding ceremonies.
313. Wilson responded that Mr. Knapp could be fined up to $1,000 and serve up to 180
days in jail.

As well as items 317, 318, and 300, quoted as follows:

317. Mr. Knapp asked if the Coeur d’Alene anti-discrimination ordinance required him
and the Hitching Post to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
318. Wilson or Gridley responded that the Coeur d’Alene ordinance would require Mr.
Knapp to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies and that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from this
requirement.
330. The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive, and substantial threat to violate
their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal
fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their
religious beliefs and ministerial vows.

Once you have replied and clearly explained how do you understand those sentences to not to mean what they clearly mean, then we can resume talking. Until then.

originally posted by: Annee
Did you know marriage without government is illegal? Neither did I.

I don't get this. Of course, it's not a LEGAL marriage, but it's not against the law. A person CAN have a wedding and ceremony. They won't be legally married, and get benefits, but it's not illegal to do so.

Am I wrong? Source

A wedding is a ceremony typically held to publicly recognize a marriage. You do not need to have a wedding ceremony to be legally married, and you do not have to be legally married to have a wedding ceremony. If you do not obtain a marriage license, you can still have a ceremony, but it will not have any bearing on your legal status as a couple.

Source 2

Some of our readers have written to say that they have had trouble finding pastors who would marry them without a marriage license. Consequently, we have started up a registry of Pastors who will do this.

Interestingly, a religious marriage CAN be recognized by the state.
Source 3

In a Christian marriage without license, the couple agrees to live as husband and wife
...
The marriage is then recorded, along with the names of the witnesses, in the Family Bible.

A Family Bible is a legally admissible document verifying the facts recorded in it.

When the marriage is solemnized by being witnessed in public and recorded in a legally competent way, the state recognizes the marriage contracted without a state license.

THAT is where the state needs to step back and become uninvolved.

And if the church or pastor refuses to conduct a marriage without a state license, that's on them to deal with, not the secular community.

This would be a good discussion thread. I'd like to hear religious people's take on this. I'm WAY too busy today replacing windows and siding, unfortunately. If someone starts a thread on it, please PM me. Thanks!

Gotta go.

In reference to the seemingly unending references to the "document," i.e the erstwhile (and invalidated due to the Knapp's filing as a religious corporation on October 6th, 2014) case brought by ADF on their behalf (as an obvious publicity stunt, given their filing status which they had conveniently neglected to inform Coeur dAlene of) ...

As some of you may have guessed, the items cited are very specific, one might even say cherry-picked ... item 305 establishes the basis of items 309-313 and 317-318 and 330 ... to wit:

303. Moreover, the local media widely reported about the Hitching Post’s unwillingness to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
304. Therefore, City officials knew about the Hitching Post’s unwillingness to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
305. In light of this general knowledge and officials’ comments in the media, Mr. Knapp decided to call the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office to clarify whether Ordinance §9.56 applied to the Hitching Post.

The questions were and always were about whether the business, i.e. The Hitching Post, would perform marriages. The answers given by the City are directed to that question. As Mr. Knapp was presenting himself as the sole representative of The Hitching Post, and as he and Mrs. Knapp (apparently) are the only principals of the corporation, then of course, if the corporation does not obey the law, then the principal(s) pay the penalty.

Context is everything.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are incorrect in your statements. The Knapps have not committed any crime. When they refused to perform same-sex marriage, it was not illegal to do so. Law cannot be applied retroactively.

According to someone else on this thread, the Rasta religion' members are allowed to smoke pot because it is part of their religious practices, even though it is illegal to everyone else, so this clearly contradicts what you just said, that the 1st only protects religious beliefs, not practices that run counter to neutrally enforced laws. The fact that you had to cite a case that is over a hundred years old to find support for your argument does not help you. If anything, it detracts from your argument, as we are not in the 19th century anymore. Namely, you should at least review the RFRA before making legal statements. I am aware that Idaho has his own version of RFRA, but I couldn't find it myself online. Still, unless it can be shown to be substantially diferente from the Federal RFRA in a way that invalidates my argument, basically there is a federal provision stating that even a religiously neutral law cannot be enforced if it is shown to cause substantive burden to a religion.

originally posted by: Benevolent HereticTruth is, Knapp HAS performed non-religious weddings for years (that were not in accordance with this religious beliefs), and only changed his position when same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho, so it's VERY clear he's discriminating based on sexual orientation. The ONLY couples he's refused are same-sex couples.

Let me ask you this. If a hardware store owner decided that he would only serve customers who were aligned with his religious beliefs, wouldn't that be considered discrimination based on religion, in your view?

You are misrepresenting my position. I have never declared myself against the same-sex wedding being performed. I have declared myself against Mr and Mrs Knapp being forced to perform the wedding themselves.


You are also incorrect in your statement. Among the items of the court case I referenced to you, one of them clearly states that, while the Knapps were willing to perform weddings that were either of non-religious nature or of other faiths, they clearly stated that they would only do so if performing it did not violate their religious convictions. As I already presented, performing any sort of wedding ceremony that violated their religious convictions would cost them their license. That they still have their license is enough evidence to demonstrate your statement to be incorrect. Read again all case items I referenced to you, and you will clearly see such to be the case here.


And as for your question, it is far too broad to be answered. If that's merely na arbitrary decision, not based on any of his religious convictions, but rather a personal decision made by himself, then yes, I would accept that as discrimination.

It's evidence, but certainly not proof. The complaint is simply a CHARGE, not a detailed factual account. It's written by ADF, who are known to be anti-gay and dishonest. I do believe there is the possibility of the business "contracting" a minister or other officiant to conduct non-religious ceremonies.

This is a genetic argument. Whether the complaint was brought up by ADF or not and whether they are anti-gay and dishonest or not has no bearings on whether the call was made, the question was asked and the answer listed is truthful. Please, reply to the evidence or present appropriate counter-evidence. Do not disregard the evidence simply because you dislike the person that produced it. That's not a demonstration of an impartial judgement.

Here's the important issue, from Gridley's letter to the ADF:

“If they are operating as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation then they are exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association,” Gridley wrote, noting that he had heard the family recently filed to become a religious corporation. “On the other hand, if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

The point is that it is the city's burden to demonstrate that they are denying services based on sexual orientation. One cannot ignore the evidence presented that the Knapps possess a single rule to deny service, that it must be according to their religious convictions, and that they apply it broadly. There is clearly a personal bias on those involved in this discussion that are simply assuming that such rule is not being applied broadly, even after the Knapps claimed themselves to do so, and that it is a case of a rule being used exclusively on a class of people to discriminate against them. I ask of you, do you have any evidence that the Knapps are lying when they claim that they apply such rule broadly, or are you simply assuming that they are guilty without any reason to do so? When did it become that a person was assumed guilty and had to demonstrate his innocence against his accusers rather than the other way around?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Annee
Did you know marriage without government is illegal? Neither did I.

I don't get this. Of course, it's not a LEGAL marriage, but it's not against the law. A person CAN have a wedding and ceremony. They won't be legally married, and get benefits, but it's not illegal to do so.

Exactly.

What they said was: "A Covenant marriage is not Legal, therefore making it illegal".

Which, of course, is just a twist of words. In no way is a Covenant marriage illegal.

Hell, gays have been doing it for years, as they had no option to a Licensed Government Marriage.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Interestingly, a religious marriage CAN be recognized by the state.

Yes, in researching it helps to read everything -- it's sometimes surprising.

I did know some states offer a Legal Covenant marriage. You do have to specifically apply for it and go through all the requirements.

It surprised me that Arizona is one of those states.