Should governments be allowed to tell churches who can get married or viceversa?

I have been reading a lot of angry questions about California Prop. 8 passing and I was wondering it people want governments telling churches who to marry or not to marry or churches telling governments who to marry or not to marry. Elaborate if you will.





And note, by marry I am implying a church wedding, not a civil union.





What do you think? Should governments be allowed to tell churches who can get married or viceversa?
I wonder how many answers will be from Californians.





In the last few months that gay marriage was legal here in CA, there were no lawsuits of gay couples trying to get married in churches that believe homosexuality is a sin. First of all, why would they want to get married there? Secondly, churches have the right to not marry whomever they please, and no law regarding the LEGALITY of marriage is going to change that.





Religion is not required for a marriage in CA. You can be married by a justice of the peace, by a representative of the county courthouse, or by a ';deputy marriage commissioner';: anyone who pays a fee to be granted the right to marry a couple one time. Just because a marriage is legal doesn't mean a church has to marry them. It is legal for a couple to get married after a few divorces, and many churches will not want to bless this marriage. It is legal for a couple to have no religious affiliation and get married, and churches don't have to marry them either. Churches can make whatever rules they want about marriage, like you have to have been a member of the church, you have to get counseling from the priest, etc.





I think churches should stay out of who is allowed to marry legally, because it doesn't concern them. They aren't supposed to dictate laws; they are supposed to guide their parishioners to spiritual needs.





By the way, separation of church and state goes both ways. Our founders did not want the government interfering in churches. Also, and perhaps more importantly, they didn't want a single church to be deeply involved in the government, as was the case in most European nations at the time. At that time, perhaps the main concern was one Christian denomination out of many ruling the country. In this day, should evangelical Christians and Mormons be telling CA what to do?





Centuries old norms and traditions: In almost all traditions, wives had no legal rights. Their husband had complete authority over them. In some cultures, women were married off as soon as they hit puberty, while wealthy men could get a another young bride when his other brides were getting older. In many cultures, marriage was determined by the parents and the husband and wife had little or no choice in the matter. In some cultures, the bride's family was legally required to provide a dowry.





If you believe that marriage should go back to being old-fashioned, you are telling me that you want the above things to happen again in America.Should governments be allowed to tell churches who can get married or viceversa?
My ';conclusion'; was actually a response to LeAnne. Centuries old norms and traditions are not the base of all laws. Modern marriage (both partners have equal legal rights, and can get a divorce fairly easily) has only been around for a few decades.

Report Abuse

Also, Roe v. Wade only allows abortion, and prevents states from banning it. As far as I know it didn't give mandates about where to perform abortions. And I agree with you, things change. Including society's acceptance of gay couples.

Report Abuse

No, the only way to solve this issue is to make a marriage strictly a religious institution that is only honored in the church.. All government recognized institutions need to be civil unions for gay or straight people, period.


If you want to have a ceremony in a church that is fine, but it should hold no merit or benefit outside of your religious organization, this would apply to both gay and straight marriages. All state sponsored or secular benefits should only be awarded via a civil union.
No.





Marriage may be a state institution, but you don't have to go to a church to be married. A justice of the peace can perform a marriage.





If the state tells a church that they must perform a marriage ceremony that goes against that church's tenets, it violates the free expression of religions.





Same reason why the state can't tell the Roman Catholic Church that it must ordain women or be sued for sexual discrimination.





You may not agree with a church's stance on gay marriage, but trying to force them to perform one is a bad idea.
Let me put it like this: the Supreme Court (of the US, not a state) ruled in 1967 that no state can ban interracial marriages. Any man can marry any woman regardless of race. However, many churches still refuse to perform such weddings, and to date not a single church has lost its tax-exempt status or had any other legal problems because of this. This is proof that the prop-8 arguments about churches being forced to perform same-sex weddings are simply scare tactics.
It is a shame that CA passed law banning same sex marriages. I feel as long as you are over 18 years of age you should be able to marry whoever you want except for your relatives which is quite the thing in the appalachian states (KY, TN, WV). If two guys, or two girls want to marry more power to them in the church or wherever they choose.
Yes.





Marriage is a state licensed institution. Despite what people say marriage is NOT a religious institution and never has been despite many religions requiring it. Every society on earth has marriage in one form or another regardless of whether or not they believe in God.
The goverment should not be forcing churches to go against their basic beliefs. That's the problem with people wanting gay marriages. They won't be satisfied with any church not accepting them. They will try and force the church to give up their beliefs and that's not right.
of course not.





no one has ever suggested that would be the case.





but lots of people (52% of voters, down from 61% a few years ago) seem to think is fine to embed their religious rules in a secular Constitution.





I am from CA btw.
I think there is a difference between a religious union and a legal one. Religions have different customs (girls marrying much older men, etc) and the law dictates what tax breaks a couple gets.
No law requires (or ever has required) any church to perform any wedding. The laws only control what marriages will be recognized by government.
Should a small minority be allowed to trash centuries old norms and traditions?

whitening cream