“If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Then Don’t Get Gay Married”

“If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Then Don’t Get Gay Married” September 14, 2013


If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get gay married.

That’s how the slogan goes.

But … who really believed they meant it?

Not, evidently, the Church of Scotland. The Kirk, as it’s called, is considering a move to discontinue performing marriage services “rather than face a slew of lawsuits from homosexual couples demanding to be wed.”

Read about it here.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

61 responses to ““If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Then Don’t Get Gay Married””

  1. The trend in the UK seems to be toward non-Abrahamic celebrations of marriage in general. Given the doctrinal hostility of religious institutions toward same-gender love, GLBT people have certainly made much more pleasant arrangements to celebrate their unions. In short, this is a non-crisis for the conservative churches, since they will keep their loyal followers through thick and thin.

    • Another purchaser of bridges for sale. If you lived on planet Earth, you would know that the moves to oblige the Churches to celebrate your pretend marriages have already started.

  2. This is just noise. The bill is not yet even passed and according to the article pointed in the post we read ““Religious bodies will have to opt in for their celebrants to be able to solemnize same-sex marriages,” a spokesman said. “Should a body choose to opt in, there is no obligation on any individual celebrant of that body to take part.”

    • I think the announcement is more than noise, and that it reflects genuine concern. However, I also think that the statement was intended to produce political pressure to make sure that the religious exemptions be solid enough to withstand a legal challenge.

    • If you are stupid enough to believe a guarantee from a British politician, I guarantee that you shall be peeled, fleeced and skinned before you even know what is happening to you. You are talking of the most untrustworthy breed in the universe. The Kirk is showing common sense, based on its clear perception that BRITISH POLITICIANS LIE, LIE, LIE.,LIE AND LIE. And then they lie some more.

      • I understand you have your own opinions, including a) that I will bee skinned, and b) that you don’t like British politicians. Noted.

        Now, I haven’t heard that religious communities have been forced to perform same-sex marriages in any of the countries where a law allowing for such marriages has been passed. So I have some evidence for an educated guess of what is going to happen in Scotland. I understand Kirk concerns and that they want to push to make sure will not be forced to perform gay marriages but that still the best guess of what is going to happen is that the Church in Scotland will be able to opt out to solemnise same-sex marriages.

        Finally, if that protection happens, then we would have also evidence that that particular politician didn’t lie. So it will be easy to verify a posteriori who is right.

        God bless

  3. If the government’s bill will protect churches from having to preform homosexual marriages, then what is the problem? IMO if a church has a problem with uniting same gender couples, then they shouldn’t have to. There are many churches that will marry SS couples and there are those that won’t in this country, so hopefully that would be true in Scotland also. Will have to see what the Kirk does in Scotland. ( An absolutely beautiful country, BTW–gorgeous).

    • The problem is that the first judge who thinks otherwise may strike down the law as contrary to the European Declaration on human rights, which is law in Britain. (It would not be, but as we have seen in the recent past, the creativity of judges in this field is infinite.) Nobody of any sense, at any rate, believes any guarantee from a British politician: used car dealers are towers of integrity and truth compared with them.

  4. Whether the Scottish Parliament passes legislation to allow same-sex marriage, and what kind protections for religious such legislation offers, is an open question. That latter question seems to be the focus of the Kirk’s concern at the moment. A legal committee of the denomination has been tasked to keep an eye on the legislation, and potential ramifications.

    Quoting from the WND article:

    The Church of Scotland also said in a statement there are no plans to stop conducting marriages at the moment, but the findings of Hamilton’s committee will come before the denomination’s General Assembly in 2015.

    “As politicians consider the bill, the Church of Scotland asks for space for itself and for its ministers to decide whether to celebrate same-sex marriages,” Hamilton said. “We are simply urging that any legislation if approved is robust enough to protect those who in conscience will not want to conduct such ceremonies.”

    • In many West and Northern European countries, even though they are secular and tolerant of many faiths, they still have an official state church. In essense, the church is an extension of the state, and therefore in some sense public facilities or institutions of a sort. From what I can tell, they can premise these sorts of lawsuits on something roughly akin to 14th Amendment claims here or others seeking equal access to public facilities and services. Not separating state and church has its flip sides.

  5. That’s about like saying, “If you believe that owning slaves is wrong, then don’t own one.” After all, it was the South that embraced the pro-choice position on slavery.

    • Perhaps rather more like saying “If you believe that interracial marriage is wrong, then don’t marry outside your race” — where the South did not embrace the pro-choice position, and where the remaining support for legislative prohibition appears concentrated.

  6. “We are simply urging that any legislation if approved is robust enough to protect those who in conscience will not want to conduct such ceremonies.”

    That certainly seems doable. So, what is the problem?

    • The problem is that the precedent from all over the world is that this is not doable for the simple reason that the advocates of gay marriage will not stop there. Lawsuits trying to force churches to perform gay marriages have already been filed in this country. The person who is pushing this bill in Scotland said they would only allow a conscience exemption to get it passed, that they oppose it. It will only be a matter of time before they repeal the exemption, if they pass it.

      • Rebecca, could you refresh my memory? What are some of the American instances of lawsuits against churches to force them to perform gay marriages?

          • I consider the latter case a poor parallel, due to the official establishment of the Church of England causing a severe break between UK and US law on Church-State interaction. Churches in the British Commonwealth have far more grounds for concern than those in the US.

            As to the former case, the lawsuit was technically not to compel a church to perform a gay marriage, but to permit one to be performed — on a site that they own that does not have a church on it, but which was engaged as a public accommodation.

            Similarly, if (for example) the Catholic Church owns a hotel somewhere in California (unlikely, but conceivably a result of a sufficiently weird bequest), they cannot prevent someone from hiring the ballroom as the site for a gay marriage; however, the government may not coerce any priest nor deacon to perform the ceremony.

          • Rebecca, the LifeSite News article concerns the Ocean Grove Camp Association. However, the OGCA is not a church, nor was it being asked to perform gay marriages.

            Because the OGCA was not a church, it had requested a special property tax exemption under a state environmental program. In exchange, the OGCA agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis.” Later someone wanted to rent the open air, outdoor pavilion on its ocean boardwalk to hold a gay marriage. At that point, the OGCA refused, which led to the lawsuit.

            The fact that the OGCA was -not- a church, and thus did not have the same protections as a church, was central to the case.

            As for the UK case, of course, it involves a different country with different legal history. It also involves the Church of England, which is a state church and tied to the government in ways which does not transfer to the US.

  7. Thankfully we have separation of Church and State. Notice it was the ‘Church of Scotland’ that is facing lawsuits. A church that is at the service of the state. Since it has received benefits and derives authority at least in part from the state. This should not happen here. The same separation of church and state that conservatives have been decrying for the last twenty years may be what they embrace later.

    • Don’t be ridiculous. In the past, “separation of church and state” did not stop the US government using the language of cannon to force the Mormons to abandon polygamy. In the future, they can and will do the same to other religious bodies when they disapprove of their sexual morality. Never mind that we disagree with the Mormon view and think the government had a point in putting it down, the precedent more than exists. The day the US government decides that the prohibition of gay marriage is against its laws – and with the horrible sentences just passed by SCOTUS you are three-quarters of the way there already – you WILL see the armed forces taking over churches and cathedrals.

      • Bollocks. Polygamy was outlawed because in the vast majority of cases it was an abusive system that involved child brides. I am sure that there are a few non-abusive polygamous marriages, but that doesn’t erase the historical record. Although I disagree with my own church’s stance, the day they are compelled to violate their own rules I will be protesting alongside you. As will many other people. One of the basic principles of democracy is that I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

        • It’s not about what you say, or haven’t you noticed? The USA suppressed polygamy because it was polygamy. Go read the contemporary materials: there is practically no mention of child brides, but plenty of anger at the outrage at American (adult) womanhood. You evidently are not capable of understanding how other periods thought and acted, and why.

          • I apologize, polygamy remains outlawed because of the reasons I listed. It was certainly outlawed then for the reasons you listed. But then again we were also systemically exterminating an entire race of people at the time, we need to learn the lessons of the past so we don’t repeat them.

            • Dear God in Heaven. I give up, I should have to teach this character the history of his own country, bit by bit, at the same time as somehow overcoming that strange modern attitude that says that never mind how little history you may know, you have the right, indeed the duty, to be indignant about it. Sorry, life’s not long enough.

          • In the USA, such separation does only go so far. Drawing a parallel from interracial dating, the case of Bob Jones U v US suggests that at some point (say, in the next decade or two), a religious-chartered school with policies against same-sex dating by students might be considered sufficiently discriminatory in violation of public policy as to risk losing their tax exemption. Worrying about that happening in the US would thus appear to be an entirely rational concern, given the historical parallels.

            Contrariwise, my understanding is that American churches still can refuse to perform interracial (or even non-white) marriages without legal consequences, as courts are not allowed to make extensive inquiry into any religious doctrine that might be basis for such sacramental proscription. As such, the Wall of Separation should go far enough to prevent in the US suits such as the Kirk reportedly fear in their own country — or at least, prevent them from lasting longer than for a summary motion to dismiss by the defendant and the judge to laugh the plaintiff out of court.

            Polygamy would seem to be a weaker parallel, as that involves civil proscription of an act with (one sect’s) religious prescription act, as opposed to the case of gay or interracial marriage where there is a civil permission of an act with religious proscription.

            Nohow, I’m not a lawyer.

      • Fabio, I agree that in 19th century America the idea of separation of church and state, or religious freedom in general, was often overlooked. And there were grave abuses of both.

        However, the Mormons voluntarily gave up polygamy as a requirement for getting Utah admitted to the US as a state. This didn’t go down easily, and there was a great deal of intransigence, but the lure of statehood eventually was sufficient.

  8. As the Church of Scotland ( including Scott homo’s ) they should have to do same sex weddings if that is legal or they could stop being a state church and join all the other faith’s in the country that do not need state backing .

  9. Homosexuality should be criminalized. Homosexuals
    commit crimes against God and against the Holy Bible. After reading this story I
    now know why God wrote:
    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he
    lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
    surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to
    uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
    between themselves:
    :26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
    affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
    against nature:

    :27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
    of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
    which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
    which was meet.

    • Rebecca, I’m very surprised you published this comment from Donald Spitz. Have you seen his website? He encourages people to murder doctors who perform abortions. – http://www.armyofgod.com/

      Donald Spitz has been thrown out of Operation Rescue because of his support and friendship with Paul Hill.

      • I had no idea about this individual’s background. However, I will allow comments from him here if he behaves. As for this comment, I should not have approved it, and wouldn’t have if I had been on my toes. It was late last night and I had a slew of them and I just went click, click, click. Apologies and thank you Sus, for pointing it out.

    • I would normally not have allowed this comment, but since I did …

      I think you are wrong about a number of things. First, homosexuality is simply a word we use for same-sex attraction. I most definitely should not be criminalized, since in and of itself it is not even an action. It is simply an attraction.

      As for criminalizing homosexual acts, I have never thought that was a good or just thing to do. It is simply outside the legitimate purview of government to peer into its citizens’ bedrooms. I do not have a problem with government criminalizing sexual acts in public, however, as this kind of behavior infringes on the rights of others. I am speaking here of sexual acts in public parks and such. This kind of behavior can destroy the purpose of parks, which is to be places of recreation and relaxation for everyone.

      As for the verses you quote above, they are taken out of the context of the whole scriptures. Jesus plainly and repeatedly went to those who were outside the various commandments and also outside social acceptability to offer them redemption and love. He drew many of His most committed followers from among those people.

      Do not think that by a wholesale condemnation of a entire group of the people God made that you are being righteous. That is a complete mistake. God loves homosexual people just as much as He does you or me or anyone else.

    • The quotes you pulled from the Bible could cause folks to completely leave any Christian faith. They have nothing to do with today, Dude.

  10. This wasn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

    The vast majority of homosexuals don’t have relationships steady enough to set in a marriage. The average homosexual man has more than 500 sexual partners–we’re supposed to think he wants to settle down with one and take happy pictures for poignant Youtube clips?

    The purpose of homosexual marriage is as a bludgeon against Christians. It’s the modern-day version of Fumi-e.

  11. Love is love regardless of your sexual orientation colour or creed. It shouldn’t have to be up for such political or religious condemnation . You don’t get this debate with heterosexual couples, I find it very frustrating and upsetting. It shouldn’t be about discriminating against two people of the same sex being in love. We should be able to express our emotions freely without fear of public flogging

  12. the catholic church loves to say that you’re never right unless the church says so. well, the people within the church are as capable of abusing that power and as stupid as anyone else, so that better explain how they can get people to trust them regarding that

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.