Huckabee: If Court Rules Gay Marriage a ‘Civil Right,’ Pastors Must Comply or They’ll

[Revmitchell]

Huckabee’s view on the issue was raised during the oral arguments at the Supreme Court last week, on April 28, by Justice Antonin Scalia, who asked, “is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?”

If gay marriage were just a state-level law, you could make exceptions for ministers of different faiths, said Scalia, “but if it’s a constitutional requirement, I don’t see how you can.”

On an April 23 conference call with conservative pastors arranged by the Family Research Council (FRC), the group’s president, Tony Perkins, commented to Governor Huckabee, “What we’re finding in the wake of this redefinition of marriage is a direct assault on religious freedom. That very ability to preach the gospel is at stake in this debate.”

In response, Huckabee said, “It very much is. And let me be very practical in how this plays out if something doesn’t change. If the courts rule that people have a civil right -- not only to be a homosexual but a civil right to have a homosexual marriage -- then a homosexual couple coming to a pastor, who believes in Biblical marriage, who says, ‘I can’t perform that wedding,’ will now be breaking the law.”


http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...y-marriage-civil-right-pastors-must-comply-or

 

[Revmitchell]

It will shut churches down. The church will be forced to move underground

 

[annsni]

We are working on rewriting our bylaws to reflect our beliefs regarding marriage and who we will and won't marry. One rule is that it must be a couple where at least one of them are a member of our church and that the pastor has the discretion to refuse a wedding for any reason (hey, we won't marry a couple that is not ready to marry even if they are a man and a woman). It might not protect us forever but it is at least a bit of a safety for now!

 

[annsni]

Here is a good resource with information on how churches can get things in position to fight this issue for now:

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/content/campaign/2014/church/SOGI-Handbook.pdf

 

[Revmitchell]

We are working on rewriting our bylaws to reflect our beliefs regarding marriage and who we will and won't marry. One rule is that it must be a couple where at least one of them are a member of our church and that the pastor has the discretion to refuse a wedding for any reason (hey, we won't marry a couple that is not ready to marry even if they are a man and a woman). It might not protect us forever but it is at least a bit of a safety for now!

It will not matter what the by laws say. If it is deemed a constitutional right it will be irrelevant.

 

[Br. Dan]

The answer is quite simple, and has already been tested in California (sorry I don't have the article, but it should be fairly easy to search), any official who does not want to officiate homo-weddings, simply refuses to officiate any weddings. There is no discrimination in such cases. Ministers in the States will finally awaken to the reality that they are ministers of the gospel and not agents of the State. For, ministers that simply means they do not sign any state marriage licenses. They can perform a church ceremony and leave the state licensing to agents of the state.

Many other countries do not recognize, church weddings officiated by ministers. For example, in Mexico, a couple who has a church ceremony must still be legally married (in the eyes of the state) by an agent of the state, the state does not recognize the church ceremony and does not allow ministers to sign state documents. Some couples pay a judge to be at the church ceremony and sign the document after the ceremony, other couples take care of the state first, then have a church ceremony shortly after (several hours to several days).

I saw this coming years ago and completely reworded my ceremony to reflect a marriage covenant based solely on God's word and completely removed any reference to the State and powers vested. I designed a frameable marriage covenant certificate that I sign, along with the husband and wife, and two witnesses. The certificate may actually be filed at the court house in lieu of a state issued marriage license in some states.

There was a couple who wanted to marry and be right before God, but did not want a state issued marriage license. They had struggled with the issue for some time. I counseled with them, preformed a church ceremony, and gave them the marriage covenant certificate. I rather believe God recognized their marriage regardless of any state licenses.

I do not believe that God ever gave authority over marriage to the state or for that matter to the church. As I posted in another thread, liberal churches have no more authority to redefine God's institution than the State. The Catholic Church assumed authority over marriage, without any Biblical authority, to prevent members from marrying non-catholics, but I digress, that is not the issue at hand.

Now a completely separate, yet related matter. It may (probably will) make a big difference if a church is organized as a 501c3 non-profit and has filed articles of incorporation with the State. Legally they are not a Church but rather a corporation bound by the corporate laws of the state in which they have chartered. The State is their Head and they must follow the dictates of the State. The State may determine the officers of the corporation must officiate over all weddings. In such a case the church may have no other recourse but to desolve. However, a 501c3 can only desolve by giving all assets to another 501c3. In other words, they do not have the option of disolving their 501c3 status, retaining the assets of the corporation, and begin to function as an unregistered Church. Unregistered Churches are not bound by such dictates of the State, and they may simply refuse to sign State documents.

These are very serious issues that need to be examined by every Church and church alike. We are in deed living in curious times.

 

[Scott J]

If I were a pastor, I would not now perform a "legal" wedding nor have anything to do with a marriage license. If people want a state endorsement then they can go to the state. For my part, that is of absolutely no consequence at all to the church or me.

I believe the best "out" is going be to refuse to perform ANY "legal" weddings.

 

[Zaac]

The answer is quite simple, and has already been tested in California (sorry I don't have the article, but it should be fairly easy to search), any official who does not want to officiate homo-weddings, simply refuses to officiate any weddings. There is no discrimination in such cases. Ministers in the States will finally awaken to the reality that they are ministers of the gospel and not agents of the State. For, ministers that simply means they do not sign any state marriage licenses. They can perform a church ceremony and leave the state licensing to agents of the state.

That pretty much covers it.:thumbs:

You might have a right to get "married", but you don't have a right to my time to marry you.

 

[Revmitchell]

This issue is not just about performing weddings. It is far more than that. It is about membership and staffing. Any for of discrimination weddings, staffing, membership can and will be effected.

 

[Zaac]

This issue is not just about performing weddings. It is far more than that. It is about membership and staffing. Any for of discrimination weddings, staffing, membership can and will be effected.

Again a wedding ceremony isn't the same as a marriage ceremony. Send them to the courthouse for that.

Staffing-businesses already discriminate. Churches aren't gonna be asked to hire gay people any more than they would be made to hire atheists.

We already don't restrict membership based on whether someone is gay. No if you're having homosexual sex, we discipline that just like we do any other form of fornication. And no, fornication doesn't change just because you secularly got "married".

 

[Br. Dan]

This issue is not just about performing weddings. It is far more than that. It is about membership and staffing. Any for of discrimination weddings, staffing, membership can and will be effected.

Yes, and that is why I mentioned corporations. Corporations (for profit and non-profits) will be effected first and will have a harder time defying the dictates of the State. An unregistered Church can divest their assets among the members and go "underground" when the time comes, but that option is not available to non-profit corporations. The Churches of America were seduced into the bed of the State on false-pretenses. Churches are by law "tax excluded" which is a completely different (and better) legal standing than "tax exempted". They were deceived into forsaking their "tax excluded" status and told they had to apply for the lesser status of "tax exemption". However, that was a lie; but in so doing, they signed over their headship to the State.

You are correct, these things will effect staffing and membership of all corporations and legal fictions including non-profits. They will effect all charities, denominational conventions, orphanages, soup kitchens, mission agencies, private and church schools, homeless shelters, et cetera, irregardless of religious affiliation. Sadly, it will also effect every church that signed legal documents to become a ward of the State.

I'm not saying that unregistered Churches will not be persecuted, I'm sure they will. However, it will be much easier for them to maneuver around and against the system.

 

[Br. Dan]

Staffing-businesses already discriminate. Churches aren't gonna be asked to hire gay people any more than they would be made to hire atheists.

While I hope that is true, I do not believe such a dogmatic position is justifiable, given the current political/social climate.

We already don't restrict membership based on whether someone is gay. No if you're having homosexual sex, we discipline that just like we do any other form of fornication. And no, fornication doesn't change just because you secularly got "married".

Non-profit churches have already been sued and lost for disciplining lesser issues. The homo-fascists will have a hay day with that in the courts and sue any church that tries it into bankruptcy.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, and that is why I mentioned corporations. Corporations (for profit and non-profits) will be effected first and will have a harder time defying the dictates of the State.

Not seeing this at all.

An unregistered Church can divest their assets among the members and go "underground" when the time comes, but that option is not available to non-profit corporations. The Churches of America were seduced into the bed of the State on false-pretenses. Churches are by law "tax excluded" which is a completely different (and better) legal standing than "tax exempted". They were deceived into forsaking their "tax excluded" status and told they had to apply for the lesser status of "tax exemption". However, that was a lie; but in so doing, they signed over their headship to the State.

Churches go into non profit corp for more than just a tax status. In fact the tax status is the least of them. The primary reason churches become a corp is liability safety of the individual persons. When the church has no corp status individual members can be sued in any liability issue. When it is a corp then the church has to be sued and not the individual.

 

[Salty]

Non-profit churches have already been sued and lost for disciplining lesser issues.

Do you have links for some specific examples?

 

[Salty]

Churches go into non profit corp for more than just a tax status.

I was informed that in NY State a group may only own property if it is INC.

 

[Br. Dan]

Churches go into non profit corp for more than just a tax status. In fact the tax status is the least of them. The primary reason churches become a corp is liability safety of the individual persons. When the church has no corp status individual members can be sued in any liability issue. When it is a corp then the church has to be sued and not the individual.

With all due respect, I understand the argument that you are making, and I wish it were true; however, that was another falacy presented to cause Churches to bow the knee. Unfortunately, even though it sounds really good, it simply does not hold true in court.

Individual members can and are sued, no matter the corporate status. Corporate leaders can and are held liable. When it is a corporation, both the corporation and the individual members can be sued. When it is not a corporation, only the individual can be sued. Nothing whatsoever prevents an individual from being sued and they can and will go after personal property. On the for profit side are many examples, the first that comes to mind is Enron. On the non-profit side, the first example that comes to mind is Indianapolis Baptist Temple and pastor Greg Dixon. However, there are a slew of other churches, non-profits, and for profits whose individual members were sued as well as the corporation. A number of corporate leaders sit in jail, bankrupted, because they mistakenly thought only the corporation can be sued.

 

[Br. Dan]

Do you have links for some specific examples?

It has been a while since I've dealt with this issue, let me see if I can find an example. One that comes to mind was a church in Georgia that disciplined and revoked membership for a man being the (alledged) guilty party that led to a divorce. The member sued the church and pastor. They ended up settling out of court, apologizing, reinstating membership, and never disciplining another member again. If memory serves correctly, he was sueing the church and pastor for slander, defimation of character, and I think mental anguish. It has been over a decade, I'll have to see if I can find a link to an article about the event.

 

[Br. Dan]

I was informed that in NY State a group may only own property if it is INC.

That is probably true, I don't know about NY, but in some states individuals may own property and hold the deed in trust, i.e. trustees. Some local assemblies of believers find it simplier and less costly to rent facilities and avoid the issue of corporate property. Other assemblies meet in public places (where permissible) or on an individual's private property.

All to say, as time marches one, American assemblies of believers may find in necessary to divest of corporate properties and statuses and become as creative as believers in other countries.

 

[Salty]

That is probably true, I don't know about NY, but in some states individuals may own property and hold the deed in trust, i.e. trustees. Some local assemblies of believers find it simplier and less costly to rent facilities and avoid the issue of corporate property. Other assemblies meet in public places (where permissible) or on an individual's private property.

In addition a church still has to have trustees.
Lots of laws about churches.

 

[Revmitchell]

Individual members can and are sued, no matter the corporate status. Corporate leaders can and are held liable. When it is a corporation, both the corporation and the individual members can be sued.

This is just not correct. I'm sorry:

You Want Protection From Personal Liability for the Group's Activities
If your group finds itself the target of a lawsuit, incorporation can provide welcome peace of mind. Nonprofit corporations can be sued -- but their members and directors are generally protected from personal liability, meaning that their own money, houses, cars, or other property isn't at risk. That's not true of an unincorporated association.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/five-reasons-incorporate-nonprofit-association-30266.html