Will Churches Be Forced To Marry Same-Sex Couples?

“Religious liberty” is the buzzword of those who are trying to stop the now nearly inevitable legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Recognition of same-sex marriages, they argue, will constitute a real and immediate threat to the religious liberty of people and churches who oppose it.

I’m not sure what they think is about to happen. Maybe they visualize hordes of gay couples trundling down to the local homophobic church and forcing the minister to marry them under duress. Or perhaps they think that two women are going to interrupt “Amazing Grace” next Sunday as they demand an immediate wedding while an ACLU attorney stands nearby with a lawsuit in hand.

I have never seen Christians look more afraid than when they are talking about how churches will be “forced” to perform same-sex weddings should marriage equality become legal.

Seriously. It’s a fear I’ve never seen when faced with the very real threats of poverty, child sex trafficking, hunger, or violence. The threat of gay marriage sends some Christians to DEFCON 1, ready to send guards to man the church doors.

Which has always struck me as, frankly, ridiculous. And here’s why. Here is how a clergyperson stops a wedding from occurring in their church: they say “no.”

I know that because I have said “no” to couples wanting to get married in the church I serve.

The reasons? I didn’t think they were ready. Or I didn’t think they communicated well. Or they asked me not to say “God” during the service.

The legal recourse I have faced as a result? Nothing. Nada. Zip. That’s because the law already absolutely protects me, as well as every other clergy member in this country, from having to officiate at a wedding I do not believe should occur.

And clergy have used that law for some pretty heinous reasons. They’ve denied interracial couples a marriage in their church. They’ve kept divorced people from marrying again. They’ve refused weddings to couples where the woman does not agree to submit to the husband.

And, as awful as it sounds, they’ve done it all legally.

Every clergyperson knows where the boundaries are on this. Which means that any clergyperson who tells you that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a threat to their place of worship is therefore quite simply lying.

And here’s the other thing they don’t tell you. By trying to keep the legal recognition of same-sex marriage from occurring, they are themselves threatening religious liberty in this country.

A growing number of religious groups support marriage equality and allow their clergy to officate same-sex weddings in their places of worship. This is true for the United Church of Christ, Unitarian-Universalists, some Episcopalians, several Jewish groups, and others. In fact, a number of these groups signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting equal marriage.

As a clergyperson who officiates at same-sex weddings and offers the blessing of my church, I feel that my religious liberty is under threat.

Why do the prayers of clergy in other churches matter more than my own? Clergy can act as agents of the state when they solemnize marriages, so how come their religious services are backed by the full blessing of the federal government while mine are not? Why is the federal government legitimating some religious views while marginalizing others?

There’s a lot of talk about “real marriage” going around, so let me tell you about what makes a marriage “real.” Last November, my now-wife and I stood up at Old South Church in Boston, a United Church of Christ parish, and we covenanted before God that we would love and support each other for life. When we said those vows, and received the blessing of our church, we were “really married." The fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and our home state of Vermont recognized it was just icing on the cake.

Unlike every straight couple who has stood up at that church and proclaimed their vows using the same ceremony, we left that church unequal under the eyes of the federal law.

We may have received the blessing of our religious community, but we also received a federal tax bill for 2012 that was $1200 higher than a straight couple’s would have been.

And when we put our wedding rings on each other’s fingers, we also had to put our names on stacks of paperwork that will (hopefully) ensure that our bond to one another is respected when it comes to pensions, medical decisions, and legal issues.

Why? Why is the blessing of my church worth less in the eyes of the federal government than that of the church down the street? And why does that church have a say about the legitimacy of worship services performed in my congregation? And, furthermore, why do religious groups even get to have a say in the legal status of marriages performed outside of houses of worship?

If we want to talk about religious liberty, let’s be honest.

Religious leaders who reject same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious liberty are asking for special treatment that tramples on the rights of others. And their religious liberty ends when it begins to infringe on the liberty, religious and otherwise, of others. Because that’s not liberty. That’s oppression. And anti-gay religious groups know nothing about being on the receiving end of it.

Photo via Rev. Emily C. Heath; Originally posted on Huffington Post

Comments (10)

You are absolutely correct. As a Episcopal priest I can refuse to marry any couple. There is no law that says I have to bless any couple's marriage. Blessings on your marriage and I am hoping and praying that some day soon you will have equal protection and opportunity under the law.

The concern is the law will change and any organization refusing to preform gay marriage will be charged with a crime of discrimination. It is one thing to say you don't have to marry a couple who isn't ready. It's another for a church to challenge a law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. That would cause a major showdown.

I think you are way out there if you do not believe in the possibility of church's being forced. It is going to end up as the same thing as I can hire or not hire anyone I want. Unless they think they can sue me to get hired or what they want. Not to mention countries that passed laws recognizing gay marriage prior to America have started passing laws forcing churches to perform the ceremonies. But I am sure that is just other countries.

It won't be a problem.

Racist churches can't be sued for refusing to marry interracial couples (and yes, there are still some churches, primarily southern, which refuse to officiate interracial marriages); marriage equality for gays won't be any different.

Where was this guy when the government took prayer out of school and the work place and most public places where it can be views as annoying or infringing on the rights of others to worship or pray. The government can do what the want, they are the government. Where were you when blacks were not allowed to drink out of public water fountains and facilities and other races were not prosecuted for killing them because it was right in the eyes of the law. You are too out of touch, just because you accept it, and you perform these ceremonies, don't tell others they are not threatened. Where have you been over the last 50 years. On another note...no shoes, no shirts, no service, remember when you didn't have to have on shoes to get service, I know that's funny but what if you don't own shoes. Seriously though if the government said that we as Pastors have to (and yes I am) move to the back of the bus (perform same sex marriage) and that they will enforce it, then believe you me, they will expect us to with consequences. .

Why is it that everyone always wants to compare "gay rights" to past civil rights. They have nothing in common. No ones saying gays can't drink out of the same water fountains as others, theres not a mass lynching in the US of gays and gays aren't being denied an education, so please stop people. It is very offensive. Come up with your own argument please.

I would strongly respect any institution with the strength and constitution to stand on topics our politicians have weakly folded to for votes. Our countrys main overall failing is overacceptance. There are incidents of children feeling uncomfortable as a boy and parents actually consider sex changes. Large topics should not be a politicians vote, but the peoples vote.

And yet here we are, despite all the blatantly false promises to the contrary, using the power of government to force people to completion and celebrate same sex marriages or be punished. Don't want to participate in a same sex marriage as a photographer or a baker or caterer? Too bad, the government will crush your business.
Don't want to perform a wedding because you're a Christian Minister? Too bad, the government will force you to.

Just as the ministers in Idaho being threatened with arrest and fines for refusing to marry a gay couple.

In line with the declaration given from the High Commission in Georgetown, Tobias
Ellwood, Foreign Office Minister, is asking for that resumption of Parliament" as expected by the Earth Rent and Guyanais Constitution. The main realistic energy will be the range of the Member of Parliament to form a government, but usually the monarch uses the convention that this option is granted with the most chairs in the Home of Commons for the head of the political party.

This can be due to the fact in the Commons there is a strong 'cooking' program where political parties notify their members how-to vote on every considerable department although a weekly group of instructions.

Historically many British authorities have been composed of ministers from a single political party which had a standard majority of seats Inside Your http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/07/mike-weatherley-mp-an... Home of Commons along with the 'first-past-the-article' (FPTP) electoral method considerably helps and even promotes this outcome.

Nevertheless, in the two's remaining week - referendum strategy, the three major functions in the united kingdom Parliament decided that, in the event the Scots elected 'no', there will be an early transport of considerable additional forces to the Scottish Parliament.

Post new comment