Hello, I've been wondering this for a while now and couldn't come up with an answer, so I thought I'd ask you. This question is specifically about same-sex couples and religious marriage. Why would anybody want to get married by someone who doesn't think their marriage should exist? I mean, there are some religious places that want to hold same-sex marriages, so couldn't couples go there [?]. Thank-you for any answers.
Maybe it's coz one of them or both wants to be married in a particular church for the place it holds/held in their life or to in their family? Like the church their parents got married in or the church in which they were christened . or maybe that church which looks like the church in their dream wedding. I mean people have wishes and when they know it can't be fulfilled just because they are gay, they tend to want it more ? I don't know this is just a speculation! But yea your point makes complete sense! Just get married by a person who believes in your "type" of marriage! ---------- Post added 27th Mar 2016 at 07:01 PM ---------- For example, I'm a Hindu, and you might have heard how extravagant and elaborate Hindu weddings are. I've always dreamt of having one such long wedding. A priest is essential for which and I know the well versed ones wouldn't be willing. But my heart wouldn't settle for the genY priests who wouldn't even pronounce the mantras correctly. So it feels less authentic if you know what I mean.
While it's entirely possible that I've missed the relevant news stories on this, I'm not aware of any reports of a same-sex couple trying to get a religious venue or official (pastor/priest/whatever) in the US to host or perform their wedding. In fact, the only people who seem to really bring up this situation are those who are against same-sex marriage and who try to build support for their case by raising the specter of religious venues/officials being forced to do this. The actual situation AFAIK has been cases of either state employees or commercial venues/enterprises wanting to refuse to perform/host/provide their services to same-sex couples who wish to get married after marriage was made legal in their area. In the former case, it is the job of the state official to follow the law and if the law says that same-sex marriage is legal, they need to do their job. Citing 'deeply held religious belief' is irrelevant both because it is a non-quantifiable factor that can mean whatever someone wants it to mean and because if we start letting government officials refuse to do their job any old time they want to, it starts getting near impossible to get things done. There is also the issue of where this line is drawn. If a government official wanted to refuse to perform/license an inter-racial or inter-faith marriage, they would be laughed out of the room, whether they cited 'deeply held religious belief' or not. The same principle applies here. In the latter case, it is an established element of US law that businesses can't discriminate based on things like race or religion and such. You can't open a business for the purpose of providing wedding related services (or that includes wedding related services) and then legally refuse to serve black people or Jews or Mormons or the like (one example of race - generally considered an inherent quality, two of religion - something generally agreed to be a choice) because you have animus against that group. Trying to apply an exception to same-sex couples because - well, it's about sex, or because they make the proprietor feel icky - is irrelevant. We don't allow it for other groups, so why should an exception be made for this specific group? 'Deeply held religious belief is a red herring'. My 2c worth, Todd
I will readily admit that I have a streak for being quite anti-authority. I would do it just for the idea of sticking it in the face of those who have a problem with it. Yeah, maybe on some accounts it may seem a little immature, but what the hell. I'm getting all the rights and want.......AND sticking it to some homophobic asshole. Sounds to me like a win-win.
I wouldn't understand that either. If I wanted to have a same-sex marriage, I would have no desire to force an unwilling religious institution to perform it. And I do not believe that religious institutions should ever be forced to perform same-sex marriages; that is their own decision to make, and not that of the government. That said, non-religious secular bureaucratic authorities should do their job: if same-sex marriage is legal, then a same-sex couple should be allowed to get married in the county courthouse or what have you. If the county clerk cannot accept this and fulfill their duty, then perhaps they should consider another job.
Well I guess that's a difference you and I have. I would have to want to marry either way, but the chance to give a final "fuck you" to some ultra right-wing, bible-thumping conservative...........well that's just bonus.
I've never understood why anyone would want to be married somewhere they weren't welcome ( it wouldn't affect me, as an atheist if I got married it would be 100% secular), but while I find faith puzzling, I accept that it is important to a lot of people, and having your marriage recognised/not recognised by your own faith would have a strong impact on many people's sense of belonging to their group, I guess.
I wouldn't wish to get married in a church that didn't accept me, but there are some interesting arguments to air around this subject. For example, in the UK, the government exempted all religious institutions from performing ceremonies for same sex couples and made a special "triple-lock" provision for the Anglican Church (Church of England). This is contentious, because it makes it extremely difficult for the established church to ever opt in, like others can, in spite of the fact that many Anglican clergymen/women and congregations would gladly perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples. As an Anglican myself, I could not ask my parish priest to marry me and my husband (even though he would have) because the law forbids it and makes it almost impossible forever. Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews have simply been able to opt in. Why should a priest be prevented from marrying a same sex couple in his church, if he is willing to do so?
I guess I do not understand why all of these business owners are so against same sex anything. I mean if I were a business owner, I would want the business. So many Mom and Pop stores are struggling to thrive in this time of big box stores. I would think they would be looking for anything to expand their clientele. I just fear this is going back to the days of segregation... but this time it will be based on sexual orientation.
