“Hurley acknowledged that until a constitutional amendment could be placed on the ballot, there’s nothing gay-marriage opponents can do to stop gay couples from marrying in Iowa. The soonest such a vote could take place would be 2012.”
Not true. Religious leaders are already conferring about an appeal that could be made within the next few days. There is a rock solid legal argument that this new social engineering abridges the rights of religions institutions to refuse to perform artificial homosexual unions. The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral. Just like the public decency and morality clauses that many civil service jobs require, the clergy cannot be forced to acknowledge such perverted same-sex union.
“The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral. Just like the public decency and morality clauses that many civil service jobs require, the clergy cannot be forced to acknowledge such perverted same-sex union.”
How is the Iowa ruling different from, say, the one in Massachusetts? I’m asking sincerely, and not to be contrary. I’m just wondering, since you don’t hear about clergymen in other states with legal gay marriage talking about being FORCED to marry people.
My church can refuse to marry anyone they want right now. Do you really believe that this ruling would change that?
Perhaps you can show me where a court has forced a Roman Catholic church to perform a marriage where one of the parties is a legally divorced person, but has not successfully gone through that church's annulment procedure. That would give some strength to that argument. Churches have always had the last word on qualifications for receiving religious services. There's no reason to believe it would be any different when it comes to qualifications for marriage.
The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral.
Even fringe religions that teach that the races should be separated are not persecuted. That only happens when someone incites violence from the pulpit. I know that a lot of people fear not being able to speak their minds about how they feel about homosexuality, but show me someone who's been imprisoned or fined for telling a racial joke. Social pressure to conform to a "new" standard can be coercive, but it's not the same as the force of law.