Do churches have the right to refuse to perform a marriage?

[BW2112]

I'm asking because I don't know. Someone is saying that if churches don't want to perform gay marriages, then they need to give up their tax exempt status. I'm for gay marriage, but it's wrong to force anti-gay churches to perform them. So before this ruling today, did churches reserve the right to not perform a marriage for straight couples for whatever reason?

[Suzanimal]

I'm asking because I don't know. Someone is saying that if churches don't want to perform gay marriages, then they need to give up their tax exempt status. I'm for gay marriage, but it's wrong to force anti-gay churches to perform them. So before this ruling today, did churches reserve the right to not perform a marriage for straight couples for whatever reason?

I know some priests are picky about who they will marry.

[Sonny Tufts]

I'm asking because I don't know. Someone is saying that if churches don't want to perform gay marriages, then they need to give up their tax exempt status. I'm for gay marriage, but it's wrong to force anti-gay churches to perform them. So before this ruling today, did churches reserve the right to not perform a marriage for straight couples for whatever reason?

You raise an interesting point. There is precedent for revoking tax-exempt status if an institution operates in a manner that contravenes public policy. For example, in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the revocation of the tax exemption of a private university that engaged in racially discriminatory practices.

On the other hand, to my knowledge no church has ever lost its exemption for refusing to perform a marriage, even an interracial one. After all, if the Catholic Church and orthodox Jewish congregations can practice sexual discrimination and keep their exempt status, there seems to be little to fear if a church refuses to sanction a gay marriage.

[westkyle]

Is a person married when they get a certificate from the state or is it a religious institution, a holy bind between a man. woman, and God? If people can get married by getting a piece of paper from the state, then what does it matter what marriage ritual a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman use? Why don't ****-sexuals start their own version of Christianity or whatever religion that allows ****-sexual marriage? I just don't get the way people think, maybe it's these crazy libertarian ideas messing with my logic and mind.

[RJB]

Rights? What rights?

[euphemia]

Just to be on the safe side, a lot of churches are putting clauses in their by-laws to prevent being forced by the State to do same-sex marriages. States are also being proactive about introducing legislation to prevent force being brought to bear on religious groups with closely held marriage teaching.

See, here's the thing about rights: If the court gives a right to something, it means someone has to provide that thing. I think if the government wants to make this law, then the government should be forced to provide the service, and let the voters decide how they want to handle it.

[William Tell]

Do churches have the right to refuse to perform a marriage?

Of course. They are churches, not post offices. They don't owe you anything, what tehy do is of their own generosity. Some pastors are part time anyway, they can't all be at your beck and call 24/7.

[specsaregood]

I know some priests are picky about who they will marry.

If the courts can force/fine you for not baking a cake for a wedding or refusing to be their paid photographer I fail to see why they can't do the same to priests/ministers/churches.

[Theocrat]

It is my strong belief that after today's Supreme Court ruling, there will be many from the homosexual community who will demand that churches marry them so that they will get those churches to lose their tax-exempt status and face legal issues from the federal government. It's the same tactic that many homosexuals have used in getting state governments to force Christian bakers to either make wedding cakes for them or suffer severe fines/penalties for not complying, under the guise of "hate crime" violations.

[William Tell]

It is my strong belief that after today's Supreme Court ruling, there will be many from the homosexual community who will demand that churches marry them so that they will get those churches to lose their tax-exempt status and face legal issues from the federal government. It's the same tactic that many homosexuals have used in getting state governments to force Christian bakers to either make wedding cakes for them or suffer severe fines/penalties for not complying, under the guise of "hate crime" violations.

I agree, this will backfire on those who try that though.

[Theocrat]

I agree, this will backfire on those who try that though.

Unfortunately, it may not backfire on them, given the fact that many churches disagree about whether homosexuality is sin or not. And you can rest assured that the mainstream media networks will showcase opinions from those Christians who agree with the SCOTUS' ruling in order to manipulate public opinion against those churches who would refuse marrying homosexuals.

[phill4paul]

Are your churches registered as a business. Do they hold a 501c status? Then yes. You are a government institution and they will tell you what you can and cannot do.

Time and again I have told Christians on these forums to divest themselves of government. Time and again most have thrown their backing to politicians that would preserve their sanctity of marriage. I'm just laughing my ass of now.

[Theocrat]

Are your churches registered as a business. Do they hold a 501c status? Then yes. You are a government institution and they will tell you what you can and cannot do.

Time and again I have told Christians on these forums to divest themselves of government. Time and again most have thrown their backing to politicians that would preserve their sanctity of marriage. I'm just laughing my ass of now.

My local church is not incorporated. We have a Biblical view of both church and state governments.

[fr33]

The catholic church refused to marry my brother and his wife because she was divorced. They didn't try to sue or anything. They just got married in their back yard. It's just another reason why the catholic church numbers are dwindling. Priests raping little kids? They'll cover it. Divorced adults? $#@! you! What a joke. And they claim to be worried about morals.

[heavenlyboy34]

The catholic church refused to marry my brother and his wife because she was divorced. They didn't try to sue or anything. They just got married in their back yard. It's just another reason why the catholic church numbers are dwindling. Priests raping little kids? They'll cover it. Divorced adults? $#@! you! What a joke. And they claim to be worried about morals.

I don't see a "joke" there. The RCC holds that divorced people can't remarry. It's not a big secret or anything. If you don't want to deal with that, either wait till you're mature enough to pick a lifelong spouse or join another religion. If you dig enough, you can probably find something you disagree with in every religion and in atheism.

[phill4paul]

My local church is not incorporated. We have a Biblical view of both church and state governments.

Very good. Then blessings be upon you to conduct your services as you wish.

Edit: I'm serious, not snark, in case I'm misconstrued.

[fr33]

I don't see a "joke" there. The RCC holds that divorced people can't remarry. It's not a big secret or anything. If you don't want to deal with that, either wait till you're mature enough to pick a lifelong spouse or join another religion. If you dig enough, you can probably find something you disagree with in every religion and in atheism.

It's a joke because that's how some people deal with a ridiculous organization. A woman who made a bad choice and married a man who beat her is required to stay with him for the rest of her life. That is Catholic rules and I say $#@!. CATHOLIC. RULES. because of that. I have no respect for an organization that preaches forgiveness even in this life but holds nobody accountable in this life. Priests rape boys and husbands beat wives. Their answer is to stick with them.

[Paulbot99]

It's a joke because that's how some people deal with a ridiculous organization. A woman who made a bad choice and married a man who beat her is required to stay with him for the rest of her life. That is Catholic rules and I say $#@!. CATHOLIC. RULES. because of that. I have no respect for an organization that preaches forgiveness even in this life but holds nobody accountable in this life. Priests rape boys and husbands beat wives. Their answer is to stick with them.

My mom got an anullment from her ex husband because he was a drunk. You officially do not know what you are talking about.

[fr33]

My mom got an anullment from her ex husband because he was a drunk. You officially do not know what you are talking about.

Luckily her ex husband agreed to the annulment. You obviously do not have any idea of how that works.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's a joke because that's how some people deal with a ridiculous organization. A woman who made a bad choice and married a man who beat her is required to stay with him for the rest of her life. That is Catholic rules and I say $#@!. CATHOLIC. RULES. because of that. I have no respect for an organization that preaches forgiveness even in this life but holds nobody accountable in this life. Priests rape boys and husbands beat wives. Their answer is to stick with them.

[VIDEODROME]

Luckily her ex husband agreed to the annulment. You obviously do not have any idea of how that works.

I know someone who'd former husband got into drugs and just ran off. It's difficult to do a full proper divorce or annulment with him absent.

[fr33]

I hope those images make you feel good about yourself. It's like closing your eyes and ignoring priest raping kids. Goddamn you are $#@!ing retarded.

You dismiss so easily domestic abuse and promote the Catholic churches method of blaming the victim. Disgusting piece of $#@!.

[fr33]

I know someone who'd former husband got into drugs and just ran off. It's difficult to do a full proper divorce or annulment with him absent.

Exactly. It's infuriating how $#@!ing retarded these people are.

[TheGrinch]

Its not like gay marriage is new, this has already been thoroughly debated and decided as far as I know.

Churches are protected by the first amendment to not have to perform a service they don't want to.

I of course think this should apply to the bakers, florists, and anyone else involved in a wedding too, but that was never a debate about whether churches have to. They don't.

[fr33]

My sister in law tried to get an annulment. Her ex refused. The catholic church's only solution is to stay with him. You are a $#@!-stick with images ridiculing me but you'll probaly never find a good catholic girl either that would put up with this $#@!. Go $#@! yourself, you sheltered moron.

[hells_unicorn]

The Covenanter position is pretty straightforward on this point, we don't acknowledge the authority of godless governments when they seek to enshrine violations against the moral law as state policy, and David Steele and his party that resisted the so-called "New Light" movement of the Reformed Presbyterians of the 19th century pretty well predicted where all of this was leading. We're extremely small in number, but we have taken a hard-line on anything involving direct involvement with the U.S. federal government due to allowances made in the U.S. Constitution that pretty much paved the way for stuff like this. We're not incorporated, no 501(c)3, we don't and will never provide chaplains for the military, military service is generally regarded as being the same as signing up with Caesar during the persecution of the church, we claim a religious objection to jury duty on similar grounds, and anyone who violates our regulative principles as drawn from the Solemn League and Covenant (including the prohibition on Occasional Hearing and the principles of political dissent) are bound to disciplinary action, including excommunication for unrepentant, habitual violations. In light of all this, any person who would openly condone homosexual unions or otherwise suggest that our ministers perform them would probably want nothing to do with us, mostly because of a laundry list of other things that we don't dignify with a debate.

To answer the OP's question, any legitimate church will not marry anyone who isn't a communicate member in good standing with the church. We generally recognize marriages performed outside of our church if and when families come to us for the purpose of converting (we generally don't re-baptize anyone either unless they were baptized in an invalid fashion such as a non-trinitarian baptism via the Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormons), but scandalous people are not married in our church prior to repentance and a period of probation.

I don't think any church can be bound to violate their own doctrines by the civil magistrate, but any church that bought into the notion of sharing a government with pagans, libertines and atheists was asking for a state of being compelled by force to violate their constitutions, and it will eventually happen, mark my words. It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS that foisted this recent decree on everyone is majority Roman Catholic, which is largely unsurprising to me, but I'm sure all of the weekend conservative types whining about this out there actually thought that the RCC cares about the sanctity of marriage. You'd think that the Son of Perdition and Jesuit plant Francis I would be handing out excommunication notices to Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy for this rather than worrying about the Sci-Fi threat of a global warming Armageddon, but alas, false prophets care only for false prophecy.

[heavenlyboy34]

My sister in law tried to get an annulment. Her ex refused. The catholic church's only solution is to stay with him. You are a $#@!-stick with images ridiculing me but you'll probaly never find a good catholic girl either that would put up with this $#@!. Go $#@! yourself, you sheltered moron.

No, you $#@! yourself. I don't know enough about the RCC's position on this to speak about it intelligently. Perhaps your SIL could talk with another priest about it. I'm not RC, but my priest is, in my experience, interested in considering all options in bad situations. A parish, after all, is a family-not just an impersonal bunch of people who hang out on Sunday.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Covenanter position is pretty straightforward on this point, we don't acknowledge the authority of godless governments, and David Steele and his party that resisted the so-called "New Light" movement of the Reformed Presbyterians of the 19th century pretty well predicted where all of this was leading. We're extremely small in number, but we have taken a hard-line on anything involving direct involvement with the U.S. federal government due to allowances made in the U.S. Constitution that pretty much paved the way for stuff like this. We're not incorporated, no 501(c)3, we don't and will never provide chaplains for the military, military service is generally regarded as being the same as signing up with Caesar during the persecution of the church, we claim a religious objection to jury duty on similar grounds, and anyone who violates our regulative principles as drawn from the Solemn League and Covenant (including the prohibition on Occasional Hearing and the principles of political dissent) are bound to disciplinary action, including excommunication for unrepentant, habitual violations. In light of all this, any person who would openly condone homosexual unions or otherwise suggest that our ministers perform them would probably want nothing to do with us, mostly because of a laundry list of other things that we don't dignify with a debate.

To answer the OP's question, any legitimate church will not marry anyone who isn't a communicate member in good standing with the church. We generally recognize marriages performed outside of our church if and when families come to us for the purpose of converting (we generally don't re-baptize anyone either unless they were baptized in an invalid fashion such as a non-trinitarian baptism via the Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormons), but scandalous people are not married in our church prior to repentance and a period of probation.

I don't think any church can be bound to violate their own doctrines by the civil magistrate, but any church that bought into the notion of sharing a government with pagans, libertines and atheists was asking for a state of being compelled by force to violate their constitutions, and it will eventually happen, mark my words. It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS that foisted this recent decree on everyone is majority Roman Catholic, which is largely unsurprising to me, but I'm sure all of the weekend conservative types whining about this out there actually thought that the RCC cares about the sanctity of marriage. You'd think that the Son of Perdition and Jesuit plant Francis I would be handing out excommunication notices to Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy for this rather than worrying about the Sci-Fi threat of a global warming Armageddon, but alas, false prophets care only for false prophecy.

Much respect to the folks at your church for being autocephalous. I'm a fan of it myself.

[hells_unicorn]

Much respect to the folks at your church for being autocephalous. I'm a fan of it myself.

Much obliged bro. It's one of the principles that the Scottish Covenanters generally held in common with the Eastern Orthodox, though a lot of the American affiliates started liberalizing during the late 19th century, largely due to how the Civil War completely altered the politics of America. We likewise are in a state of union with other congregations in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey, and we are currently in a state of dialogue with several congregations in The Philippines believe it or not.

We are still interested in the broader state of Christendom, particularly those that still hold to the Trinitarian faith, but it's been pretty depressing lately how messy things have gotten and it's been a practice of ours of late to disregard some of the controversies going on in so-called Mainline churches because it's all rehashed stuff from the first 5 centuries of the church era.

[Christian Liberty]

The Covenanter position is pretty straightforward on this point, we don't acknowledge the authority of godless governments when they seek to enshrine violations against the moral law as state policy, and David Steele and his party that resisted the so-called "New Light" movement of the Reformed Presbyterians of the 19th century pretty well predicted where all of this was leading. We're extremely small in number, but we have taken a hard-line on anything involving direct involvement with the U.S. federal government due to allowances made in the U.S. Constitution that pretty much paved the way for stuff like this. We're not incorporated, no 501(c)3, we don't and will never provide chaplains for the military, military service is generally regarded as being the same as signing up with Caesar during the persecution of the church, we claim a religious objection to jury duty on similar grounds, and anyone who violates our regulative principles as drawn from the Solemn League and Covenant (including the prohibition on Occasional Hearing and the principles of political dissent) are bound to disciplinary action, including excommunication for unrepentant, habitual violations. In light of all this, any person who would openly condone homosexual unions or otherwise suggest that our ministers perform them would probably want nothing to do with us, mostly because of a laundry list of other things that we don't dignify with a debate.

To answer the OP's question, any legitimate church will not marry anyone who isn't a communicate member in good standing with the church. We generally recognize marriages performed outside of our church if and when families come to us for the purpose of converting (we generally don't re-baptize anyone either unless they were baptized in an invalid fashion such as a non-trinitarian baptism via the Jehova's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormons), but scandalous people are not married in our church prior to repentance and a period of probation.

I don't think any church can be bound to violate their own doctrines by the civil magistrate, but any church that bought into the notion of sharing a government with pagans, libertines and atheists was asking for a state of being compelled by force to violate their constitutions, and it will eventually happen, mark my words. It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS that foisted this recent decree on everyone is majority Roman Catholic, which is largely unsurprising to me, but I'm sure all of the weekend conservative types whining about this out there actually thought that the RCC cares about the sanctity of marriage. You'd think that the Son of Perdition and Jesuit plant Francis I would be handing out excommunication notices to Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy for this rather than worrying about the Sci-Fi threat of a global warming Armageddon, but alas, false prophets care only for false prophecy.

I'm for jury service, not out of loyalty to the state, but in order to undermine the system (jury nullification.)

That said, overall this is the type of church I want to be in