Does Government have the right to force someone to marry homosexuals?

[king of the unknown]

Adding to another discussion that came up recently do you think the Government has/should force someone to marry homosexuals? Does the Government have the power over judges opposed to religious figures?

 

[psalms 91]

No the government should have no say opver religion and they should have say over judges that try to legislate from the bench

 

[popsthebuilder]

No. If they want to be married then it should be by the state and not affiliated with religion.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MarkFL]

I think a minister certainly has a right to refuse to marry a couple, if in doing so, he/she feels like they are going against their beliefs. Actually, I feel a minister has the right to refuse to marry a couple and not even be required to cite a reason.

 

[psalms 91]

exactly

 

[Krissy Cakes]

charis en excelcis What do you think? Would you marry a gay couple? I'm eager to know.

 

[charis en excelcis]

charis en excelcis What do you think? Would you marry a gay couple? I'm eager to know.

So, this is really three issues. The first is homosexuality. Homosexuality is sin. The reason it is sin is that God created man, male and female, in the image of God. Sexuality is an expression of the image of God. When we twist this image, we dishonor the image of God. This is the argument put forward in Romans.
The second is marriage. The legal definition of marriage has no impact on the covenant of marriage. The covenant of marriage is established in Genesis Two. I am under a covenant put upon me by God concerning my wife. That covenant is not established by the marriage certificate, nor by the wedding ceremony. Only God can sanctify. A wedding ceremony is a community recognition and blessing of that covenant. The wedding vows are a public agreement to the covenant. There are many who hold marriage certificates who are not part of a covenant with God.
The third is the question, would I perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. The answer is no. I serve God, and I cannot believe that God would sanctify sin. If I performed such a ceremony, I would be defrauding the couple by assuring them that this relationship was blessed by God. I would receive great judgment from the Great Shepherd for deceiving the sheep.

 

[psalms 91]

Nor would I, if they want a civil union then let it be called what it is, it is not marriage

 

[Jesus Saves]

Homosexuality is an abomination of God> Therefor so should those marriage or so called marriages

 

[tango]

A large part of the problem here is that this contentious word "marriage" means two things that may or may not apply at the same time.

Firstly we have the spiritual concept of marriage as a covenant before God. Other faiths may have their own concepts of what "marriage" means before their gods.

Then we have the secular concept of marriage as defined by the secular government, in which two people take on secular responsibilities in exchange for secular benefits. Someone entering into such a contract need not have a faith in any gods, and given the secular nature of the benefits of this concept of marriage there is no obvious reason why any group of two or more people should not be allowed to enter into it. If, for example, my wife and I decided to enter into a secular contract with my best buddy and his wife, such that we could file one single tax return, we all had automatic inheritance rights and next-of-kin rights, we got automatic custody of their kids if anything happened to them etc, why shouldn't we be free to do so? As for who is having sex with who within the group, that's not really anybody else's business.

One fundamental problem over the years is that the church and the state seem to have gotten rather more intertwined than is ideal. If the church wants to offer a state-sanctioned service it can't really complain if the state then requires it to offer the service more widely than it might choose. It seems to me that perhaps the best solution is for churches to get out of the secular marriage business entirely and only offer a blessing service to couples once they are already legally married in a registry office. That way they can restrict the blessing service to members, and decide for themselves what membership criteria they want to put into place.

It's not a huge leap for such a thing to happen. In the UK there is at least one type of Islamic marriage service that is not recognised by the government, thereby requiring Muslim couples who want an Islamic ceremony to also have another secular ceremony where they take vows recognised by the state in order to be legally married.

 

[tango]

Homosexuality is an abomination of God> Therefor so should those marriage or so called marriages

With respect, if you're going to post one-liners like that it's better if you offer some Scripture to support the case. Using terms like "abomination" sounds like you're doing little more than harking back to verses in Leviticus, which doesn't work very well because these days we ignore the other verses in Leviticus about wearing clothes of mixed fiber, eating shellfish, trimming the edges of our beards and so on. A reasoned Scriptural argument against homosexual acts needs a bit more thought, and without a reasoned argument you're preaching to the converted where those who agree with you are concerned and you look like little more than a rabble-rouser to those who disagree with you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Adding to another discussion that came up recently do you think the Government has/should force someone to marry homosexuals? Does the Government have the power over judges opposed to religious figures?

If the job description says one is to issue marriage licenses according to the law then, now that same sex marriages are legal in the USA, it is part of the job description to issue marriage licenses to same sex couple who are legally married. If one refuses to do so then one must either resign one's job or obey the court order or face the penalty for being in contempt of court by refusing its legal order.

 

[tango]

Adding to another discussion that came up recently do you think the Government has/should force someone to marry homosexuals? Does the Government have the power over judges opposed to religious figures?

I suppose if the government is the body that issues the license to conduct marriages then the same government can revoke the license if the license-holder doesn't comply with the terms of the license.

If a minister decides they don't want to marry gay couples, and marrying anyone who asks is a condition of the license, it seems they can always hand in the license and not marry anyone. So on that basis they have the ultimate trump card in avoiding being forced to conduct a gay marriage, but if they want to keep the license the government probably is in a position to force the issue. I say probably because I'm not a lawyer and don't know what, if any, terms apply to the license to marry people.

 

[charis en excelcis]

One fundamental problem over the years is that the church and the state seem to have gotten rather more intertwined than is ideal. If the church wants to offer a state-sanctioned service it can't really complain if the state then requires it to offer the service more widely than it might choose. It seems to me that perhaps the best solution is for churches to get out of the secular marriage business entirely and only offer a blessing service to couples once they are already legally married in a registry office. That way they can restrict the blessing service to members, and decide for themselves what membership criteria they want to put into place.

One clarification that I want to make, the performing of weddings far predates the issuing of marriage certificates by the government, In America, we had several hundred years of frontier, where the church records were the only records. In a way, the clergy were invited to sign the certificates, not the other way around.

 

[tango]

One clarification that I want to make, the performing of weddings far predates the issuing of marriage certificates by the government, In America, we had several hundred years of frontier, where the church records were the only records. In a way, the clergy were invited to sign the certificates, not the other way around.

Sure, but since the church is now conducting a ceremony recognised by the state how would you propose resisting the state if it imposes terms upon the license it now requires for a marriage to be legally valid?

 

[charis en excelcis]

Sure, but since the church is now conducting a ceremony recognised by the state how would you propose resisting the state if it imposes terms upon the license it now requires for a marriage to be legally valid?

I agree with you. Most of the world has separated the two acts. American clergy needs to stop signing certificates.

 

[Alithis]

I agree with you. Most of the world has separated the two acts. American clergy needs to stop signing certificates.

haha .. my my you mean like .. separation of church and state sort of thing ..

 

[charis en excelcis]

haha .. my my you mean like .. separation of church and state sort of thing ..

Yes, but not the separation of men and their faith.

 

[Alithis]

So, this is really three issues. The first is homosexuality. Homosexuality is sin. The reason it is sin is that God created man, male and female, in the image of God. Sexuality is an expression of the image of God. When we twist this image, we dishonor the image of God. This is the argument put forward in Romans.
The second is marriage. The legal definition of marriage has no impact on the covenant of marriage. The covenant of marriage is established in Genesis Two. I am under a covenant put upon me by God concerning my wife. That covenant is not established by the marriage certificate, nor by the wedding ceremony. Only God can sanctify. A wedding ceremony is a community recognition and blessing of that covenant. The wedding vows are a public agreement to the covenant. There are many who hold marriage certificates who are not part of a covenant with God.
The third is the question, would I perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. The answer is no. I serve God, and I cannot believe that God would sanctify sin. If I performed such a ceremony, I would be defrauding the couple by assuring them that this relationship was blessed by God. I would receive great judgment from the Great Shepherd for deceiving the sheep.

to be more precise .. (not for any particular reason ) -it is sin because God declared it to be so .. no further reason is needed. however there is reason

sodomy ..-which the the real topic as there is no such thinghs as a homesexual ..(it is modern term added in to distract the topic toward insidious and ambiguous argument by demonic inspiration) is an acting out of unnatural lust inspired by the demonic in rebellion to the command of God to go forth and be fruitful and multiply.
it takes the seed of life and rebelliously satisfies SELF by putting the seed ..in the waste pipe . --
sorry to be base .. but this also is a reason behind the "why" it is sin

 

[charis en excelcis]

Our God is rational. He defines morality, but he also reasons. Romans (who's divine author is God) makes it clear that homosexuality is an offense against the image of God. A homosexual is one who practices homosexuality, much as a thief practices thievery. Sodomy refers only to male homosexuality.