http://news.yahoo.com/churches-changing-bylaws-gay-marriage-ruling-153638830.html "Worried they could be sued by gay couples".
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Churches changing bylaws after gay marriage ruling
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
The legal people for the Florida Baptist Convention are telling churches to put the statement that marriage is between a man and a woman into their by-laws. The churches that use the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as their doctrinal statement are somewhat protected by the section defining marriage biblically.
Courts are ruling that businesses have no right to not provide services to gay couples. It's a short step to discrimination suits against churches.
Churches may decide to just get out of the marrying ceremony and only do a religious ceremony after the civil deal is done.
Right now, there is actually no need for doing this. Just as a church cannot be forced to marry a divorcee, it cannot be forced to marry a same-sex couple. But it's not now that's the problem. It's years from now, decades from now... In the 70's, you may recall the attempts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, and that was one consequence that many opponents claimed, and supporters dissed-- economist Sylvia Porter for one, who wrote that that would not happen because the definition of marriage is one man wedded to one woman. Well, that has changed, hasn't it? Maybe she and other supporters did, or did not, really believe such an amendment would have nothing to do with the definition of marriage. But that's just an example of how what is not taken to be feasible today may be tomorrow [years, decades,...]. So it is likely a proper thing for churches to clearly define what type of marriages they will honor or perform.
Our church has changed our bylaws proactively about two years ago to better prepare and protect ourselves on a number of issues, we included this as well.
Obviously around these parts I'm not the most conservative voice, but in seeing where culture is heading this was a prudent decision to make. We're seeing florists being sued for not providing flowers for gay marriages. There is a high probability that this will transfer to churches and ministers.
I keep hearing from pro-gay marriage groups that they'll stand against such things, yet they've been entirely silent on the other issues where some have been attempted to be forced to comply with gay couples.
There is an odd cultural movement afoot, it should be compelling to see where it ends up.
Obviously around these parts I'm not the most conservative voice, but in seeing where culture is heading this was a prudent decision to make. We're seeing florists being sued for not providing flowers for gay marriages. There is a high probability that this will transfer to churches and ministers.
I keep hearing from pro-gay marriage groups that they'll stand against such things, yet they've been entirely silent on the other issues where some have been attempted to be forced to comply with gay couples.
There is an odd cultural movement afoot, it should be compelling to see where it ends up.
If a florist or others who are engaged to do a service for weddings must violate their own beliefs by serving weddings against those beliefs, then how does a delicatessen have a right to be kosher and tell anyone who comes there for a ham sandwich they have to go elsewhere because of the owner's beliefs?
But churches do not have to please any persons' wish to be married therein for not being a male-female couple, for being divorced, for not having shown a commitment to a biblical marriage, or for any reason it deems valid. Yet.
Where a forced change could be coming in future decades is in the fact that one officiating a wedding is acting as an officer of the state. The only options may become that a church wedding has absolutely nothing to with legal marriage, or a minister, or whoever, pronouncing a couple legally married must agree to not to "discriminate," as if he were an elected or appointed judge. There have already been cases in which a Justice of the Peace was forced to either stop performing weddings or to not discriminate by also marrying same-sex couples if they request it. A JP, like a minister, does not have to do any weddings; but unlike a minister, a JP cannot refuse to do a wedding because it violates his beliefs, if he does weddings at all. That's how it is for now, with no guarantee for the future.