Skip to comments.Church Won’t Do Weddings For Straight Couples Until Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal [NC Methodist Church]
Posted on 03/19/2013 4:55:19 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
- A local church has elected to stop performing marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex marriage is legalized.
In a statement posted on the front page of their website, officials at the Green Street United Methodist Church said that they ask other churches to join in the movement to refuse to sign any State marriage licenses until this right is granted to same- sex couples.
The statement added, Because the United Methodist Church prohibits its pastors from conducting same-sex weddings, excluding gay and lesbian couples from the holy sacrament of marriage, the Leadership Council has asked the pastor to refrain from conducting wedding ceremonies in our sanctuary for straight couples, until the denomination lifts its ban for same-sex couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at charlotte.cbslocal.com ...
When my church does gay weddings I am gone.
Suicide! Where do they think they are going to get the children to populate their Sunday School?
If I was a member of that church and refused to do me wedding over that, I’d be SMOKIN pissed.
Any church that does not take a firm stand against homosexual unions should be avoided.
No surprise for liberal Charlotte.
Here in South Carolina, `NC’ stands for “Northern Commieland”. I offer Charlotte, Asheville, Chapel Hill, & rest my case.
Isn’t that basically telling G-d to **** off?
Why don’t churches like that just merge with the Universalist Unitarians and get it over with?
This shepherd has lost his flock and his soul. Damnation awaits those that mock GOD.
This simple and feckless generation is more worried about gay marriage than deficits, budgets and wars. No wonder they elected an impotent President twice.
Actually, this church is protesting against the denomination’s stand on same-sex marriage.
Only that particular local Methodist Church. The Methodist church follows their book of discipline and bans gay marriage.
The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church
Page 102 reads as follows:
B) MarriageWe affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that Gods blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The church is in Winston-Salem
When you see these things come to pass, look up, for your redemption is nigh...
The previous link was the first one I found. But it is from the 2008 edition. The 2012 edition (latest) reconfirms that same point and can be found here at the United Methodists web site.
God does the excluding. He also excludes goats, pigs, and rocks from the Holy sacrament of marriage. Don't these people care about the feelings of animals and inanimate objects?
I have never understood all this hubbub about gay marriage being illegal when it relates to anything but gaining mainstream status and getting government related benefits that are tied to filing taxes jointly.
The argument is made in an emotional manner about how they love each other just as straight couples do, they want to make the commitment as straight couples do, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
So what?!!! If two people want to make that commitment then they can make it whether it is legally recognized or not. They can go to a lawyer and draw up a binding contract just like a marriage - they can even have a ceremony just about anywhere they like, they can live together either happily or in misery just like anyone else.
This is about forcing their views on everyone else, it’s about insisting everyone else be outwardly tolerant of their views while not reciprocating.
Why does almost no one make this argument in the face of all the nonsense arguments that gays make?!!!
The driving force is the collection plate. Will the action increase or decrease collections? That is the only question that matters to the minister
When the principle contributors cannot get their children or grandchildren married in their church, they will vote with more than their dollars, they will vote with their feet and not return.
Not all of them. There must be a significant portion that agree with that standing or it would not have gotten this far. But I suspect they will find it an unsustainable position.
So its is not a Church that follows the word of God.
Go somewhere else...........
This behavior supports Satan’s subversion, and NOT Christ’s charity.
I’d say that they’re out of the marriage business for the forseeable future then.
I believe that Christian churches should refuse to sign state-issued marriage certificates in “same sex marriage” states.
If the state has become this corrupt, no Christian church should be acting as their agent.
The “official” UMC position is to NOT celebrate sodomy....though they HAVE debated it WAY too much....this appears to be a renegade group.
So change churches!!! Don’t forget a church is FUNDED by its congregation. Stop the money, the doors close. If the doors stay open, then this is what this congregation wants...none of my business.
One of the ‘whore churches’ Luther knowingly referred to.
It has never been about equal rights. It has always been about the 3-4% of the population which is deviant imposing their values on the 96-97% of the population which is normal.
The Methodist Church(?) will never follow the Bible. They’re more concerned if you gamble . . . Boy, that’s a No-No with them.
Homosexuality . . . hmmmm . . . not too sure what the Bible says about that
Abortion. . . hmmmm . . . not too sure what the Bible says about that
Fornication . . . hmmmm . . . not too sure what the Bible says about that
I’m still waiting for our Methodist pastor to hold the Bible in his hand and actually tell us what’s wrong and sinful rather than worry about upsetting some of the congregation.
Sorry, but it's more like 1 to 1-1/2%
Who Cares ??? Let this church close its doors.
When they say Straight couples , do they mean NORMAL People ?
Just what UMC church do you go to? Ain't seen anything in writing anywhere where they flat out agree with the Bible's condemnation of sodomy.
You may be right about homo perverts, but I’m counting all classes, threesomes, bis, transgenders, etc.
The horror! They might have to choose another church to get married in. There’s only one on almost every other street in America. Their stance has nothing to do with standing on principles. As usual it’s just another look at me” liberal trying to get his name in the MSM for attention. Were libs not loved enough by their mothers or what?
I'm unanimous on that too!
Would you replace your marriage with such a contract?
What do you lose doing it?
You might be able to 'bind' one another with such a contract but hospitals, governments and blood relatives? They won't care.
Your alternative fails because it doesn't work in the real world. That's why their argument exists.
WIshful thinking on your part. But let's say it was 1%, that's 3 million Americans. In raw numbers, that's not an insignificant population by any stretch.
I chair the ministry commission for my denomination in Florida and we have a set policy to perform no gay marriages, no civil unions. We only do weddings between one man and one woman.the day that changes I am outta there...if the govt mandates I do it...I will become a resistor. We need to stop the slide to sodom an gomorrah and get back on the path which leads to the narrow gate.
Here in Pennsylvania, you can download a template form off the internet, spend $5 or so to get it witnessed and notarized and it becomes just as legally binding as a marriage certificate. Other states have similar procedures.
It is only an issue because the gay mafia wants to redefine marriage.
BS! Power of attorney, living wills, etc... provide for all but government recognition of the marriage for tax purposes. The government’s recognition of marriage was only ever there to promote marriages where procreation could occur - to promote the type of familial structure that has been shown time and again to be the best possible situation for well adjusted adults; realizing all the while these would be adults who eventually become productive taxpaying citizens.
Would you replace your definition of marriage for something that obviously doesn’t promote a healthy lifestyle?
Gays should start their own religion and worship themselves.
Only the General Conference speaks for The United Methodist Church. When the lay and clergy delegates to General Conference approve a statement, it is published in the Book of Discipline and/or the Book of Resolutions. These words come from the people of The United Methodist Church.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2012.
161 B) MarriageWe affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that Gods blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Get any local UMW to preach that at any sermon. It'll never happen. Never.
For one thing, they're afraid of the 501C3 prohibition of preaching "politics" from the pulpit.
My experience doesn’t agree with that statement.
Not a specific sermon focused on that topic, but on making decisions based upon desires that are contrary to biblical teachings.
Then again, I’ve attended UMC services where most of the congregation was part of the military. We sold a shotgun as part of a fund raising event. Probably not typical of many UMC churches but they do exist.
Seriously. It is not as if violating the incest taboo would lead to children. It seems no more “unnatural” than any other same-sex pairing. I mean, once you arbitrarily reject one moral value, how can you refuse to object a similar one?
Further, I can see utility between sibling marrying under those conditions, especially in states where uncontested divorces are low-cost and simple. It would allow two siblings to file at married rates, which could be useful if one sibling has a high-paying job and a second is in college.
Besides, gays have claimed for years that the gummint doesn't belong in the bedroom. If it does not matter with whom you are sleeping, it does not matter with whom you are not sleeping. If two brothers or two sisters wish to take advantage of gays wanting to pretend that playing house is marriage, why should they be stopped?
Of course, this makes a mockery of marriage, but no more so than redefining marriage from its traditional definition of a union between one woman and one man.
When? Is there a chance that it might?
If so, you should have been long gone already.
There is vast difference between holy matrimony and a civil union. The first is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman seeking God’s blessings. The second is a commitment between two people seeking the government’s approval. The sacrament of marriage is a part of God’s plan for His people. A civil union is a state sanctioned contract. The government has the ability to sanction an infinite variety of civil contracts: two men, two women, one man and four women, one woman and two men, two brothers, and on and on. Holy Matrimony was created by God to bless His people. The government created civil unions(state sanctioned marriage) as a contract between two (or more) people.