MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They'll next argue that it's illegal for a church to refuse to perform a gay marriage. After all, it's a legal marriage, and the priest has to be licensed to officiate, right?
They'd be massively wrong, and it runs about...
um, free to get ordained as a minister. Hell, in California that's
all you need.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes. It's easy to be ordained to perform a marriage. I have friends who have done it (and performed marriages). What I'm saying is that gay couples will deliberately demand that specific individuals (clergy) who are in a profession which normally performs marriages must perform theirs. They will clearly have other avenues, but they'll demand this anyway. One can presume specifically because the clergy will likely refuse and thus open themselves up to lawsuit. Are you seriously not seeing this pattern? It's already started. Churches have been sued for not allowing gay marriages to be performed on their property (successfully in at least one case I know of).
They could have held their wedding anywhere, but choose to have it on church grounds. And the courts ruled they had a right to do so! Please don't be naive. This is how the process works. It's not about what is reasonable or right, but what can be made to appear to be unreasonable and wrong so that it can be used as a "cause". That's it. That's what it's all about. If you don't see this, then you haven't been paying attention to the last 40 years of activist movements.
Quote:
The argument "but they can't refuse to do X!" holds precisely zero legal water. The court's reaction would be roughly what mine is here: "Why don't you get ordained yourself and preside over the wedding yourself? Quit wasting our time."
No. It wont. A reasonable thinking person would assume that. But it's not the case. They will rule that a organization which normally performs a service cannot discriminate with regard to who they perform that service for. They will do this, not because it makes sense, and not because there aren't a hundred alternatives, but because it pushes the process another step. When we talk about "activist judges", this is what we're talking about. Ones who don't rule on the law, or what is reasonable, but on what works for the "cause" at hand.
Wasn't there a case just recently of a justice of the peace who refused to perform a gay marriage? Despite the fact that there were presumably dozens of other people who could have done it, he still got sued, didn't he? And how many people on this board lept to his defense? I seem to recall very very few did. Why is he different than a priest legally?
Of course this will happen. That you don't think so speaks to your own ignorance of the process and the history of political activism. Of course, some day you might realize what's going on and also say "enough is enough". But when you do, there will be a horde of new young people who don't get it, who'll insist (as you do right now), that what's happening is perfectly ok, and it's all about rights and freedoms and whatever. And the cycle of insanity will continue...
