evil marriage upheld

It still isn't law yet or am I reading it wrong?

Probably no more so than any other sin that is commited.

 

We already faced this in Canada. A secular society has every right to enact the laws of its choosing.

The only thing we asked, as church ministers, was that we not be forced by law to perform any weddings other than what we choose. This was granted as part of the law

Note: We are licenced by the province to perform weddings.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, I'd love for you to suggest that portion of Canadian law to the folks in New Jersey. Send them a copy.

 

Dispen,

As ministers, we got together and sent a collective letter to Ottawa with our demands, and it was granted.

The right of gays to enter a union was granted under the Canadian Bill of Rights. It is, however, under review and it is proposed to be a free vote in the parliament before it becomes final.

Suggest your ministers come together for a change and jointly approach the officials who enact laws.

Cheers,

Jim

 

We added an "article of faith" just to cover such a thing and protect our church. Also, I marry who I want to and if I don't want to then no one is going to make me. We now have as an Order of our Church that we receive as members who are married it must be one woman to one man.
I can tell you this if the laws continue to change that the courts will not recoginize the Bible as a defense, you must have it in your by-laws.

 

I am curious, if this becomes the law of the land and ministers are required to marry those that they would chose not to marry for any reason, are bylaws enough to protect the minister?

Heaven help us all when ministers have to marry anyone and everyone.

 

There is no law over ministers but God's law, when it comes to marrying people but if you don't have your church protected then you announce open door "look out".

 

I don't kow the laws in the USA. In Canada, a minister does not have the right to marry because he pastors a church and is ordained as such. The province grants the right to marry under licence from the province to any person approved by that "denomination". In essence, we serve not only our church, but also the province. They set the rules. When we leave a church, we must return our licence and reapply. This is especially true when we change provinces.

We can perform all the marriages we want, but they would not be legal if we are not licenced by the province.

Now we have guaranteed the provision of choice in marriage partners. We can't control what the province allows legally.

And, it wouldn't matter what you have in your own constitution if it went against the laws of the land.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The government cannot tell a pastor who he must marry (it's called the First Amendment, separation of Church & State and all that, which so many on here are against).

The trouble is marriage is two things. Usually coinciding with each other, but not necessarily. One is marriage recognized by a religious order. Second meaining is a legal, civil contract.

For example, Utah's government doesn't recognize plural marriages as legal, but the FLDS church recognizes them in their church. As long as churches don't run afoul of civil law, they are free to do as they please in this regard. What is getting the FLDS folks in hot water is the issue of child abuse and the fact that plural marriage is illegal in Utah.

So, the state can civilly decide who they will consider married. Doesn't mean a church has to recognize it.

 

Well, I am sure it veries from State to State but there still is separation of Church and State but in Kentucky we did have to be licensed by the State but no longer. Any ordained minister is allowed to marry people in this State and I certainly can refuse to marry someone. I would think even in Canada, though you be licensed by the Province that you still could refuse to marry someone. I can tell you this, if they said I had to marry two men then they could have my license and take it with them where they are going.

 

Time was, when marriage was not a function of the government. Then some official realized there was money in it. And the government decided that it was better equipped to handle marriage than the church.

And the rest is history.

Like so many other things, this wouldn't be a problem, if the government wasn't involved.

 

As I noted first off, I only speak for Canada. I haven't a clue what the laws are in the USA. I know that I cannot perform weddings in the USA and have it legal........Yet, I can be called to pastor a church in the USA and I can't be stopped at the border because of the separation of church and state. Wonder what happens to my performing weddings in the USA then? Hmmmm Not that it will happen unless you know any churches that want an 80 year old pastor........lol

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't know about elsewhere in the U.S., but you are authorized to perform marriages in Texas. To marry people here, all you need to be is authorized by your congregation and/or religious order to do so. You are also allowed if you are a Christian minister, priest, or Jewish Rabbi.

 

Amen, brother.

People who want the government's mandate for their pet issue should be very, very careful about what they ask for.

 

What do you gentlemen recommend; anarchy? I don't understand.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Anarchy? No. Limited, constitutional government? Yes.

In the U.S. our federal constitution was written to place limits on the power of the government and on how deeply it could be involved in the lives of the citizens. It was written to limit the intrusion of the federal government on the lives of the people. It was not written to spell out our rights but rather to spell out the limits on the power of government. Our federal government long ago burst through the bonds placed upon it by the constitution.

 

As far as government is concerned, if male-female marrieds have tax breaks, health care benefits, rights of survivorship, etc., then the same rights must be extended to same-sex marrieds. This is an issue of social justice and civil rights.

The state cannot dictate to churches who may and may not marry.

 

As far as I know, clergy are not forced to marry interracial couples or interreligious ones, so this should not be any different.

Justices of the peace, however, are in a different position as civil servants.